New study on UK public aquaria

[Jordi Casamitjana]

For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
been recently published by two British organisations.

The Captive Animals’ Protection Society published one study
referring the whole of the UK public aquarium industry, and it can be
seen at:
http://www.captiveanimals.org/aquarium/suffering.htm

Advocates for Animals publish the other study referring only to
Scottish public aquaria, and it can be seen at:
http://www.advocatesforanimals.org/campaigns/captive/aquaticparks/beyondtheglass.html

Both studies are interrelated, and focus mainly on fish and/or aquatic
invertebrates, both marine and freshwater (covering issues such as
abnormal behaviour, animal welfare, health, conservation, education,
research, contact with humans and even aquarium design)

Jordi

[Mean_Chlorine]

Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
Unto All:

>For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
>been recently published by two British organisations.

I never fail to be amazed by the blind alleys animal rights
organisations go chasing down.

These people need to work a month on a commercial trawler, that's my
spontaneous comment. Perspective is important.

[2pods]

These people need a month in the nets of a commercial trawler !


"Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
...
> Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
> Unto All:
>
>>For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
>>been recently published by two British organisations.
>
> I never fail to be amazed by the blind alleys animal rights
> organisations go chasing down.
>
> These people need to work a month on a commercial trawler, that's my
> spontaneous comment. Perspective is important.
>

[Jon W]

Worrying about animal welfare is a good thing. I think those links draw
attention to some valid concerns.

"Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
...
> Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
> Unto All:
>
> >For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
> >been recently published by two British organisations.
>
> I never fail to be amazed by the blind alleys animal rights
> organisations go chasing down.
>
> These people need to work a month on a commercial trawler, that's my
> spontaneous comment. Perspective is important.
>

[Jon W]

Yes. It's always good to ridicule those who try to protect animals!

"2pods" > wrote in message
...
> These people need a month in the nets of a commercial trawler !
>
>
> "Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
> > Unto All:
> >
> >>For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
> >>been recently published by two British organisations.
> >
> > I never fail to be amazed by the blind alleys animal rights
> > organisations go chasing down.
> >
> > These people need to work a month on a commercial trawler, that's my
> > spontaneous comment. Perspective is important.
> >
>
>

[luminos]

What credentials are involved with this study? The claim is that it is
scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise for
these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way? Since
you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems, perhaps
you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or attempt
at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence. Are you
an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?



"Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message
om...
> For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
> been recently published by two British organisations.
>
> The Captive Animals’ Protection Society published one study
> referring the whole of the UK public aquarium industry, and it can be
> seen at:
> http://www.captiveanimals.org/aquarium/suffering.htm
>
> Advocates for Animals publish the other study referring only to
> Scottish public aquaria, and it can be seen at:
> http://www.advocatesforanimals.org/campaigns/captive/aquaticparks/beyondtheglass.html
>
> Both studies are interrelated, and focus mainly on fish and/or aquatic
> invertebrates, both marine and freshwater (covering issues such as
> abnormal behaviour, animal welfare, health, conservation, education,
> research, contact with humans and even aquarium design)
>
> Jordi

[Jon W]

I'm guessing that you keep fish. Do you have the qualifications you list?

Don't automatically leap to the defensive stance. Animal rights activists
have got a lot of bad press, much of it well deserved, but they help to keep
the pot stirred.

"luminos" > wrote in message
...
> What credentials are involved with this study? The claim is that it is
> scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
> background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise for
> these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way? Since
> you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
> non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems, perhaps
> you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or
attempt
> at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence. Are you
> an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?
>
>
>
> "Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message
> om...
> > For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
> > been recently published by two British organisations.
> >
> > The Captive Animals’ Protection Society published one study
> > referring the whole of the UK public aquarium industry, and it can be
> > seen at:
> > http://www.captiveanimals.org/aquarium/suffering.htm
> >
> > Advocates for Animals publish the other study referring only to
> > Scottish public aquaria, and it can be seen at:
> >
http://www.advocatesforanimals.org/campaigns/captive/aquaticparks/beyondtheglass.html
> >
> > Both studies are interrelated, and focus mainly on fish and/or aquatic
> > invertebrates, both marine and freshwater (covering issues such as
> > abnormal behaviour, animal welfare, health, conservation, education,
> > research, contact with humans and even aquarium design)
> >
> > Jordi
>
>

[2pods]

I'm not against people protecting animals.
IIWUTM I'd make foxhunters be chased to within a inch of their lives, and
see how they liked it !

However, what's the next step with this report, banning fishkeeping ?
Why not confiscate all of our pets ?

Public aquariums are never a replacement for natural habitat, but a lot of
good conservation work goes on in them via education, breeding, etc.

Peter

"Jon W" > wrote in message
...
> Yes. It's always good to ridicule those who try to protect animals!
>
> "2pods" > wrote in message
> ...
>> These people need a month in the nets of a commercial trawler !
>>
>>
>> "Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
>> > Unto All:
>> >
>> >>For those that may be interested, a study on UK public aquaria has
>> >>been recently published by two British organisations.
>> >
>> > I never fail to be amazed by the blind alleys animal rights
>> > organisations go chasing down.
>> >
>> > These people need to work a month on a commercial trawler, that's my
>> > spontaneous comment. Perspective is important.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Mean_Chlorine]

Thusly "Jon W" > Spake Unto All:

>Yes. It's always good to ridicule those who try to protect animals!

Is that what they're doing?

I thought they were straining gnats and swallowing camels, and
alienating the public in the process.

[Jordi Casamitjana]

"luminos" > wrote in message >...

> What credentials are involved with this study?


Is over 20 years of involvement with animal issues any good? If not,
how many years more you think I need?. Perhasp the fact I am an
independant animal welfare consultant and I live from my experitise on
animal welfare matters may be credetials enough (although I suspect
that you would not think so). In any event, would you judge a report
for the credentials of the author or for its contents? It depends on
the contents, does it not? (if you like them or not, I mean)


>The claim is that it is
> scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
> background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise for
> these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way?


Degree in zoology, especialised in animal behaviour, several
scientific papers published...do you think these my be rellevant at
all?


> Since
> you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
> non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems, perhaps
> you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or attempt
> at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence.

Have not you read the title of the report? 'A critical study of Uk
public aquaria'. Have you ever encountered the word 'critical'
before?. If so, have you ever encountered in a scientific paper or
academic book? If so, have you ever found in such paper or book a
totally 'ballanced' portray of the subject investigated, or a critical
view instead?

Public aquaria never give anything other than a positive view of what
they do (hidding anything is bad and exagerating anything most people
consider good). Do not you think that it is a biased view of what they
do? If so, do not you think that one critical report among the
thousands publications the public aquaria industry produce in order to
sell their product would contribute, if anything, towards a more
unbiased view of the reality of public aquaria?

> Are you
> an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?

I am a zoologist with particular expertise in captive animals (of all
sorts, origens and biomes), but even if I was not, that would nor mean
that I cannot see and count (all the research of the reports is very
basic, just seeing and counting, really) nor that I am unable to
develop an objective criticism.

I must assume you are a ichthyologist with a Ph.D. Do you consider the
opinion of anyone else in the list that are not ichthyologists with a
Ph.D irrellevant, or at the very least 'biased'?

Jordi


>
>
>

[luminos]

"Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message
om...
> "luminos" > wrote in message
> >...
>
>> What credentials are involved with this study?
>
>
> Is over 20 years of involvement with animal issues any good?
No.


If not,
> how many years more you think I need?. Perhasp the fact I am an
> independant animal welfare consultant and I live from my experitise on
> animal welfare matters may be credetials enough (although I suspect
> that you would not think so). In any event, would you judge a report
> for the credentials of the author or for its contents? It depends on
> the contents, does it not? (if you like them or not, I mean)
>
>
>>The claim is that it is
>> scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
>> background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise
>> for
>> these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way?
>
>
> Degree in zoology, especialised in animal behaviour, several
> scientific papers published...do you think these my be rellevant at
> all?
>
>
>> Since
>> you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
>> non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems,
>> perhaps
>> you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or
>> attempt
>> at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence.
>
> Have not you read the title of the report? 'A critical study of Uk
> public aquaria'. Have you ever encountered the word 'critical'
> before?. If so, have you ever encountered in a scientific paper or
> academic book? If so, have you ever found in such paper or book a
> totally 'ballanced' portray of the subject investigated, or a critical
> view instead?
>
> Public aquaria never give anything other than a positive view of what
> they do (hidding anything is bad and exagerating anything most people
> consider good). Do not you think that it is a biased view of what they
> do? If so, do not you think that one critical report among the
> thousands publications the public aquaria industry produce in order to
> sell their product would contribute, if anything, towards a more
> unbiased view of the reality of public aquaria?
>
>> Are you
>> an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?
>
> I am a zoologist with particular expertise in captive animals (of all
> sorts, origens and biomes), but even if I was not, that would nor mean
> that I cannot see and count (all the research of the reports is very
> basic, just seeing and counting, really) nor that I am unable to
> develop an objective criticism.
>
> I must assume you are a ichthyologist with a Ph.D. Do you consider the
> opinion of anyone else in the list that are not ichthyologists with a
> Ph.D irrellevant, or at the very least 'biased'?
>
> Jordi


I see no science here, Jordi. And that I am, way beyond your credentials.

[luminos]

"luminos" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "luminos" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>> What credentials are involved with this study?
>>
>>
>> Is over 20 years of involvement with animal issues any good?
> No.
>
>
> If not,
>> how many years more you think I need?. Perhasp the fact I am an
>> independant animal welfare consultant and I live from my experitise on
>> animal welfare matters may be credetials enough (although I suspect
>> that you would not think so). In any event, would you judge a report
>> for the credentials of the author or for its contents? It depends on
>> the contents, does it not? (if you like them or not, I mean)
>>
>>
>>>The claim is that it is
>>> scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
>>> background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise
>>> for
>>> these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way?
>>
>>
>> Degree in zoology, especialised in animal behaviour, several
>> scientific papers published...do you think these my be rellevant at
>> all?
>>
>>
>>> Since
>>> you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
>>> non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems,
>>> perhaps
>>> you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or
>>> attempt
>>> at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence.
>>
>> Have not you read the title of the report? 'A critical study of Uk
>> public aquaria'. Have you ever encountered the word 'critical'
>> before?. If so, have you ever encountered in a scientific paper or
>> academic book? If so, have you ever found in such paper or book a
>> totally 'ballanced' portray of the subject investigated, or a critical
>> view instead?
>>
>> Public aquaria never give anything other than a positive view of what
>> they do (hidding anything is bad and exagerating anything most people
>> consider good). Do not you think that it is a biased view of what they
>> do? If so, do not you think that one critical report among the
>> thousands publications the public aquaria industry produce in order to
>> sell their product would contribute, if anything, towards a more
>> unbiased view of the reality of public aquaria?
>>
>>> Are you
>>> an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?
>>
>> I am a zoologist with particular expertise in captive animals (of all
>> sorts, origens and biomes), but even if I was not, that would nor mean
>> that I cannot see and count (all the research of the reports is very
>> basic, just seeing and counting, really) nor that I am unable to
>> develop an objective criticism.
>>
>> I must assume you are a ichthyologist with a Ph.D. Do you consider the
>> opinion of anyone else in the list that are not ichthyologists with a
>> Ph.D irrellevant, or at the very least 'biased'?
>>
>> Jordi
>
>
> I see no science here, Jordi. And that I am, way beyond your credentials.
>
>

Sorry, I am not an ichthyologist, but a scientist in another area.

[Mean_Chlorine]

(Jordi Casamitjana) wrote in message >...

> how many years more you think I need?. Perhasp the fact I am an
> independant animal welfare consultant and I live from my experitise on
> animal welfare matters may be credetials enough (although I suspect
> that you would not think so).

Independent animal welfare consultant? You mean lobbyist or activist,
do you not?

> > scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
> > background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise for
> > these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way?
>
> Degree in zoology, especialised in animal behaviour, several
> scientific papers published...do you think these my be rellevant at
> all?

May be relevant, certainly. Not necessarily so, however, and reporting
stereotypical behaviour in fish and claiming that they are "losing
their minds" and that their "quality of life" is suffering does not
exactly give that impression.

I assume you have reviewed the literature on the subject of
behavioural disorders in captive marine fish? Could you tell us what
you found?
Not counting your own earlier "critical studies", that is.

Or how about some examples of stereotypical behaviour in fish? I
suspect readers of this group, many of whom experienced fishkeepers,
would be interested in hearing about "stereotypical flashing", for
instance.

> > Since
> > you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
> > non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems, perhaps
> > you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or attempt
> > at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence.
>
> Have not you read the title of the report? 'A critical study of Uk
> public aquaria'. Have you ever encountered the word 'critical'
> before?

I have. "Critical study" in a scientific context means to fairly
evaluate assumptions, data or theories used in other studies. Such a
study might come to a contrary view of other studies, but is supposed
to remain objective and fair.
Would you say that is what this study does?

> academic book? If so, have you ever found in such paper or book a
> totally 'ballanced' portray of the subject investigated, or a critical
> view instead?

Yes, I would expect to find a balanced, fair, even-handed analysis.
Why could a critical analysis of something not be balanced?
After all, what is the scientific value of a tendentious analysis?

> Public aquaria never give anything other than a positive view of what
> they do (hidding anything is bad and exagerating anything most people
> consider good).
> Do not you think that it is a biased view of what they
> do?

So do two wrongs make a right?

> If so, do not you think that one critical report among the
> thousands publications the public aquaria industry produce in order to
> sell their product would contribute, if anything, towards a more
> unbiased view of the reality of public aquaria?

Yes, it seems two wrongs make a right.

> > Are you
> > an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?
>
> I am a zoologist with particular expertise in captive animals (of all
> sorts, origens and biomes), but even if I was not, that would nor mean
> that I cannot see and count (all the research of the reports is very
> basic, just seeing and counting, really) nor that I am unable to
> develop an objective criticism.

So you are qualified to determine if these particular species of fish
are behaving normally or abnormally? Whether their "quality of life"
is reduced?

> I must assume you are a ichthyologist with a Ph.D. Do you consider the
> opinion of anyone else in the list that are not ichthyologists with a
> Ph.D irrellevant, or at the very least 'biased'?

I do not consider myself an ichthyologist -although technically I
suspect I may be- but I do have a PhD in zoology, I have published
several articles, and I certainly don't consider other peoples
opinions necessarily irrelevant.

I do however hold everyone, regardless of their education or
employment, to some standard of truth and conduct. What I'm seeing
here is a tendentious report with dubious data analysed to reach a
conclusion decided before the collection of data even started, and
presented in a sensationalist form in order to achieve mainstream
press penetration. Basically I am seeing propaganda masquerading as
science.

And I don't like that.

But prove me wrong. Publish the report in a major peer-reviewed
scientific journal. Show that it has value beyond that of the paper
the press release was printed on.

[luminos]

"Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
om...
> (Jordi Casamitjana) wrote in message
> >...
>
>> how many years more you think I need?. Perhasp the fact I am an
>> independant animal welfare consultant and I live from my experitise on
>> animal welfare matters may be credetials enough (although I suspect
>> that you would not think so).
>
> Independent animal welfare consultant? You mean lobbyist or activist,
> do you not?
>
>> > scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
>> > background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise
>> > for
>> > these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way?
>>
>> Degree in zoology, especialised in animal behaviour, several
>> scientific papers published...do you think these my be rellevant at
>> all?
>
> May be relevant, certainly. Not necessarily so, however, and reporting
> stereotypical behaviour in fish and claiming that they are "losing
> their minds" and that their "quality of life" is suffering does not
> exactly give that impression.
>
> I assume you have reviewed the literature on the subject of
> behavioural disorders in captive marine fish? Could you tell us what
> you found?
> Not counting your own earlier "critical studies", that is.
>
> Or how about some examples of stereotypical behaviour in fish? I
> suspect readers of this group, many of whom experienced fishkeepers,
> would be interested in hearing about "stereotypical flashing", for
> instance.
>
>> > Since
>> > you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
>> > non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems,
>> > perhaps
>> > you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or
>> > attempt
>> > at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence.
>>
>> Have not you read the title of the report? 'A critical study of Uk
>> public aquaria'. Have you ever encountered the word 'critical'
>> before?
>
> I have. "Critical study" in a scientific context means to fairly
> evaluate assumptions, data or theories used in other studies. Such a
> study might come to a contrary view of other studies, but is supposed
> to remain objective and fair.
> Would you say that is what this study does?
>
>> academic book? If so, have you ever found in such paper or book a
>> totally 'ballanced' portray of the subject investigated, or a critical
>> view instead?
>
> Yes, I would expect to find a balanced, fair, even-handed analysis.
> Why could a critical analysis of something not be balanced?
> After all, what is the scientific value of a tendentious analysis?
>
>> Public aquaria never give anything other than a positive view of what
>> they do (hidding anything is bad and exagerating anything most people
>> consider good).
>> Do not you think that it is a biased view of what they
>> do?
>
> So do two wrongs make a right?
>
>> If so, do not you think that one critical report among the
>> thousands publications the public aquaria industry produce in order to
>> sell their product would contribute, if anything, towards a more
>> unbiased view of the reality of public aquaria?
>
> Yes, it seems two wrongs make a right.
>
>> > Are you
>> > an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?
>>
>> I am a zoologist with particular expertise in captive animals (of all
>> sorts, origens and biomes), but even if I was not, that would nor mean
>> that I cannot see and count (all the research of the reports is very
>> basic, just seeing and counting, really) nor that I am unable to
>> develop an objective criticism.
>
> So you are qualified to determine if these particular species of fish
> are behaving normally or abnormally? Whether their "quality of life"
> is reduced?
>
>> I must assume you are a ichthyologist with a Ph.D. Do you consider the
>> opinion of anyone else in the list that are not ichthyologists with a
>> Ph.D irrellevant, or at the very least 'biased'?
>
> I do not consider myself an ichthyologist -although technically I
> suspect I may be- but I do have a PhD in zoology, I have published
> several articles, and I certainly don't consider other peoples
> opinions necessarily irrelevant.
>
> I do however hold everyone, regardless of their education or
> employment, to some standard of truth and conduct. What I'm seeing
> here is a tendentious report with dubious data analysed to reach a
> conclusion decided before the collection of data even started, and
> presented in a sensationalist form in order to achieve mainstream
> press penetration. Basically I am seeing propaganda masquerading as
> science.
>
> And I don't like that.
>
> But prove me wrong. Publish the report in a major peer-reviewed
> scientific journal. Show that it has value beyond that of the paper
> the press release was printed on.

Bravo, Mean_Cholorine. I have a tendency to be curt, and you fleshed out
the problems nicely.
--Luminos, Ph.D.

[Danya]

i agree with the part of the study where some of the rays were touched
by humans too much too often causing severe wounds. if you ask me,
that is horrible and should be stopped. but simply keeping fish in an
aquarium is something that has been going on for hundreds of years.
as long as the fish keeper does everything possible to make sure the
fish is comfortable, i see no problem in it whatsoever.

[NetMax]

"Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
om...
> (Jordi Casamitjana) wrote in message
>...
>
<snip>
>
>.... What I'm seeing
> here is a tendentious report with dubious data analysed to reach a
> conclusion decided before the collection of data even started, and
> presented in a sensationalist form in order to achieve mainstream
> press penetration. Basically I am seeing propaganda masquerading as
> science.


Also what I'm seeing - which is unfortunate as there *are* problems in
the trade which need to be corrected, and sensationalised articles are
easy to ignore.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Jordi Casamitjana]

(Mean_Chlorine) wrote in message >...
> (Jordi Casamitjana) wrote in message >...
>
> > how many years more you think I need?. Perhasp the fact I am an
> > independant animal welfare consultant and I live from my experitise on
> > animal welfare matters may be credetials enough (although I suspect
> > that you would not think so).
>
> Independent animal welfare consultant? You mean lobbyist or activist,
> do you not?

I mean somebody that is paid for his opinion on animal welfare issues,
and is not in the payrol of zoological collections or goverment.


>
> > > scientific. What scientific background, behavioral research methods
> > > background, and statistical analysis background provides the expertise for
> > > these very descriptive data presented in a very unscientific way?
> >
> > Degree in zoology, especialised in animal behaviour, several
> > scientific papers published...do you think these my be rellevant at
> > all?
>
> May be relevant, certainly. Not necessarily so, however, and reporting
> stereotypical behaviour in fish and claiming that they are "losing
> their minds" and that their "quality of life" is suffering does not
> exactly give that impression.

You know perfectly well that when I used the term "loosing their
minds" I used it in the context of a visitors' perception when seen a
fish spiralling ("this obviously pointless behaviour would most likely
leave any observer, experienced or otherwise, with the distinctive
impression that the fish is 'loosing its mind'). Are you telling me
that you, with all your credentials, are certain that no visitor
seeing a fish spiraling may think the fish is loosing its mind?

Regardin 'quality of life', no scientist with a shred of ethics in its
veins would find this expression un-scientific (vivisectionist would,
however).

>
> I assume you have reviewed the literature on the subject of
> behavioural disorders in captive marine fish? Could you tell us what
> you found?
> Not counting your own earlier "critical studies", that is.

If you had read properly the report you would nave seen that one of
the findings of the study is that the UK public aquarium industry as a
whole publishes an average of one scientific paper every 30 years (and
it is supposed to be one of the most 'scientific' public aquaria
industry of the world). Since stereotypic behaviour does not occur in
the wild, and as shown almost no scientific research in public aquaria
is published (the only research that takes place is on husbandry
methods undertaken by aquaria staff, who never would 'admit' the
existance of abnormal behaviour in aquarium fish for obvious reasons)
is it then that surprising that there are not many papers on
stereotypic behaviour on fish?


> Or how about some examples of stereotypical behaviour in fish? I
> suspect readers of this group, many of whom experienced fishkeepers,
> would be interested in hearing about "stereotypical flashing", for
> instance.

There are plenty of examples in the report (pacing, circling, ITB,
SBB, etc) that can be seen in the video tapes, clips of which are also
downloadable in the CAPS website. Regaring 'stereotypical flashing'
there a is an extensive explaination in the report why it was
included. If you object to it, I will be happy to read your argument
why it should not be included, if you have any.


> > > Since
> > > you, Jordi, are cited as the source of this apparently descriptive
> > > non-scientific study, full of sampling and observational problems, perhaps
> > > you can enlighten us on why this bias, with no contrary evidence or attempt
> > > at scientific skepticism, should be given the slightest credence.
> >
> > Have not you read the title of the report? 'A critical study of Uk
> > public aquaria'. Have you ever encountered the word 'critical'
> > before?
>
> I have. "Critical study" in a scientific context means to fairly
> evaluate assumptions, data or theories used in other studies. Such a
> study might come to a contrary view of other studies, but is supposed
> to remain objective and fair.
> Would you say that is what this study does?

This would be a 'critical study' on another publication, not a
'critical study' on a issue or situation. Besides, being critical does
not mean not to be objective. It just means that it pays more emphasis
to the weakness or otherwise
'negative' aspects, not the positive ones.

>
> > academic book? If so, have you ever found in such paper or book a
> > totally 'ballanced' portray of the subject investigated, or a critical
> > view instead?
>
> Yes, I would expect to find a balanced, fair, even-handed analysis.
> Why could a critical analysis of something not be balanced?
> After all, what is the scientific value of a tendentious analysis?

You are confusing scientific research with journalism. Are you trying
to tell me that scientific papers give as much support to the theories
and hypothesis they are trying to prove than to the ones contray to
them? The scientific debate created when a scientific work is
published is the one that end up being ballanced, but each paper
support a side of a scientific arguments, you should know that if you
have such important credentials.
I published my findings for anyone to criticise and debate, as we are
doing right now. This is fundamentally fair, and in line with the
spirit of scientific debate.


>
> > Public aquaria never give anything other than a positive view of what
> > they do (hidding anything is bad and exagerating anything most people
> > consider good).
> > Do not you think that it is a biased view of what they
> > do?
>
> So do two wrongs make a right?

No, one right ballances up one wrorng.

>
> > If so, do not you think that one critical report among the
> > thousands publications the public aquaria industry produce in order to
> > sell their product would contribute, if anything, towards a more
> > unbiased view of the reality of public aquaria?
>
> Yes, it seems two wrongs make a right.
>
> > > Are you
> > > an ichthyologist with a Ph.D.?
> >
> > I am a zoologist with particular expertise in captive animals (of all
> > sorts, origens and biomes), but even if I was not, that would nor mean
> > that I cannot see and count (all the research of the reports is very
> > basic, just seeing and counting, really) nor that I am unable to
> > develop an objective criticism.
>
> So you are qualified to determine if these particular species of fish
> are behaving normally or abnormally? Whether their "quality of life"
> is reduced?


I am qualify to make an initial assesment, yes, and to tell others
about it so they can make theirs (although you seem that you do not
want me to tell anyone, I wonder why)

>
> > I must assume you are a ichthyologist with a Ph.D. Do you consider the
> > opinion of anyone else in the list that are not ichthyologists with a
> > Ph.D irrellevant, or at the very least 'biased'?
>
> I do not consider myself an ichthyologist -although technically I
> suspect I may be- but I do have a PhD in zoology, I have published
> several articles, and I certainly don't consider other peoples
> opinions necessarily irrelevant.
>
> I do however hold everyone, regardless of their education or
> employment, to some standard of truth and conduct.

That is OK, I do the same.


>What I'm seeing
> here is a tendentious report with dubious data analysed to reach a
> conclusion decided before the collection of data even started, and
> presented in a sensationalist form in order to achieve mainstream
> press penetration. Basically I am seeing propaganda masquerading as
> science.

I can see what you are seeing, but believe it or not, this may not be
what everyone else is seeing (perhaps in this group would be, for
obvious reasons, but not in the rest of the world out there). Every
time that a scientific or otherwise work challanges the 'status quo'
with compelling evidence, the 'propaganda' argument is put on the
table. This is OK, as long as the deabte is healthy and polite; at the
very least it will make people think about issues that may otherwise
escaped their thoughts.

Just one question (if you want to continue, of course): which kind of
evidence would you accept that would make you support the abolition of
keeping fish in captivity for entertaiment, education, conservation or
research reasons?

Jordi

[2pods]

"Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message

<<Just one question (if you want to continue, of course): which kind of
evidence would you accept that would make you support the abolition of
keeping fish in captivity for entertaiment, education, conservation or
research reasons?

Jordi>>

And this had to go into every aquaria group because:

A: You believe in it. In which case fine, we've heard you, but we don't have
to agree with you, so go away.

B: You just like stirring things up....?

Peter

[Ali Day]

> "Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message
>
> <<Just one question (if you want to continue, of course): which kind of
> evidence would you accept that would make you support the abolition of
> keeping fish in captivity for entertaiment, education, conservation or
> research reasons?

None of the above, my tank's entertaining, I have no problems with that,
education no worries at all, conservation of course, and research within
reason, but again no problems at all.

The article itself, again I have no problems with, it's written from a
welfarist point of view and the conclusions are not really surprising, but
being critical about the content I would have gone into greater detail.
Statements like
"On almost every front public aquaria seem to fail. Many animals suffer in
public aquaria, and no conservation, education or research work can
compensate for this." are vague and I would have given alot more evidence.
Alot of people here have their backs up, but it's about public aquaria, not
your average 200L tank in the back room.

I have alot of respect for people who raise environmental concerns,
highlighting short falls in any industry be it about safety, welfare, or
conditions to raise public awareness. But you come to my house and start
whinging on about my fish tank, and I'll dump you in the nearest ghetto and
tell you to sort out the standard of their lives first.

Cheers

A

[Ali Day]

> "Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message
>
> <<Just one question (if you want to continue, of course): which kind of
> evidence would you accept that would make you support the abolition of
> keeping fish in captivity for entertaiment, education, conservation or
> research reasons?

None of the above, my tank's entertaining, I have no problems with that,
education no worries at all, conservation of course, and research within
reason, but again no problems at all.

The article itself, again I have no problems with, it's written from a
welfarist point of view and the conclusions are not really surprising, but
being critical about the content I would have gone into greater detail.
Statements like;
"On almost every front public aquaria seem to fail. Many animals suffer in
public aquaria, and no conservation, education or research work can
compensate for this." are vague and I would have given alot more evidence.
Alot of people here have their backs up, but it's about public aquaria, not
your average 200L tank in the back room.
I didn't have time to go through the PDF file so forgive me if it's in
there.

I have alot of respect for people who raise environmental concerns,
highlighting short falls in any industry be it about safety, welfare, or
conditions to raise public awareness. But you come to my house and start
whinging on about my fish tank, and I'll dump you in the nearest third world
country and tell you to sort out the standard of their lives first.
Perspective is required, so chill everyone ;)

Cheers

A

[luminos]

You must understand that some of our complaints are about the use of the
word 'science' to defend the biased observations and reasoning. In this
case it is a *******ization of the term.

[Jordi Casamitjana]

"Ali Day" > wrote in message >...
> > "Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in message
> >
> > <<Just one question (if you want to continue, of course): which kind of
> > evidence would you accept that would make you support the abolition of
> > keeping fish in captivity for entertaiment, education, conservation or
> > research reasons?
>
> None of the above, my tank's entertaining, I have no problems with that,
> education no worries at all, conservation of course, and research within
> reason, but again no problems at all.
>
> The article itself, again I have no problems with, it's written from a
> welfarist point of view and the conclusions are not really surprising, but
> being critical about the content I would have gone into greater detail.
> Statements like;
> "On almost every front public aquaria seem to fail. Many animals suffer in
> public aquaria, and no conservation, education or research work can
> compensate for this." are vague and I would have given alot more evidence.

Most of the evidence is in the PDF file title 'Aquatic zoos', which is
what I wrote. What you quote is just part of the overall conclusion
after having considered all the evidence. The report has 136 pages, so
there is quite a lot of detail there. In fact, there is a whole
chapter for every subject in the statement you quote.


> Alot of people here have their backs up, but it's about public aquaria, not
> your average 200L tank in the back room.
> I didn't have time to go through the PDF file so forgive me if it's in
> there.
>
> I have alot of respect for people who raise environmental concerns,
> highlighting short falls in any industry be it about safety, welfare, or
> conditions to raise public awareness. But you come to my house and start
> whinging on about my fish tank, and I'll dump you in the nearest third world
> country and tell you to sort out the standard of their lives first.

Is this what you think I was doing, coming in your house startinh
whingling on about your fish tank?

> Perspective is required, so chill everyone ;)

Chilling is good


Cheers

Jordi

[Rayzor]

2pods wrote:
> "Jordi Casamitjana" > wrote in
> message
>
> <<Just one question (if you want to continue, of course): which kind
> of evidence would you accept that would make you support the
> abolition of keeping fish in captivity for entertaiment, education,
> conservation or research reasons?
>
> Jordi>>
>
> And this had to go into every aquaria group because:
>
> A: You believe in it. In which case fine, we've heard you, but we
> don't have to agree with you, so go away.
>
> B: You just like stirring things up....?
>
> Peter
>
Animal rights freaks against fishkeeping.

[Mean_Chlorine]

Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
Unto All:

(For some reason I've not received your earlier responses other than
as snippets in other peoples replies. If there was something you
wanted me to see, you may want to resend or mail it to me.)

Anyway, I've a question for you: your main criticism in both this
report and in the previous, very similar, report on the plight of fish
in Scottish pet shops, is that you claim to find stereotypical
behaviour in captive fish.

Thing is, there are hardly any documented cases of stereotypical
behaviour in fish, anywhere, by anyone, ever, except in conjunction
with diseases which affect the central nervous system - but you find
stereotypical behaviour everywhere.

I am of course aware of the literature on, and have personlly often
seen, stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds - but I do not
believe I have ever, in thirty years of fish keeping, seen
stereotypical behaviour in fish. And as you say stereotypical
behaviour is easy to spot.

The behaviours you describe - e.g. scratching against objects
repeatedly ("stereotypical flashing"), "breaking the surface", or
swimming in circles, and attacking the glass... they are all
explainable by other factors, which you give no indication of having
investigated.
For example, repetitive flashing results from any persistent
irritation of the skin, often parasites but any irritant (e.g. pH
shifts) can cause this; "breaking the surface" can have any number of
causes, from the fish being used to being hand-fed at the surface (as
is done with fish in petting-tanks, so they'll come close and let
people touch them), via oxygen shortage, to various avoidance
behaviours; constant swimming is the natural state of being for
pelagic fish, and in a restricted space they _must_ swim in circle (or
back and forth, or against current); attacking against the glass is a
common behaviour for territorial fish, as the aquarium is more
brightly lit than the room outside, and the fish therefore sees its
reflection in the glass.

The thing is, the behaviours aren't irrational, and if you take away
the immediate cause, the behaviour stops. Give the pelagic fish room,
and they immediately swim in a straight line. Medicate the fish and/or
improve water quality, and the flashing stops. Light up the room and
the aggressive fish calms down. Feed through a tube and the fish stop
scouting the surface for food (they'll instead, quite rationally, wait
by the tube).

This, in turn, mean that while some of these behaviours have causes
which no doubt are stressful for the fish (e.g. fighting the
relentless aggressor in the glass, or having an itching parasite
infection) _it's not stereotypical behaviour_.

At least not necessarily so, and you've done nothing to show that it
is.

Frankly it is beyond me how you can conclude that a fish which is
scratching itself is displaying stereotypical behaviour (ie performing
a repetitive non-functional act out of boredom, understimulation or
psychosis) without doing basic things such as having checked the fish
for parasites or measured the ammonia level of the water!

This is part of my criticism against your report. You're clearly not
sufficiently familiar with fish behaviour, normal or otherwise, to
tell if their behaviour is normal, rational responses to their captive
environment, or symptoms of psychological distress.


Another, more serious criticism, is that you gloss over the serious
fundamental problem with your theory: whether fish at all develop
stereotypical behaviour.
You, apparently purposely, hide the complete lack of support in
literature by citing irrelevant articles on mammals, neuromotorical
diseases, and yourself - and these alleged stereotypical behaviours is
the very core of your article, the very means by which you determine
if the fish are suffering!


The very first thing you need to do is establish that stereotypical
behaviour in fish _at all exist_. Outside the realm of neuromotorical
diseases, anyway.

Blaming insufficient study, cultural bias or the unwillingness of
fishermen to believe in the suffering of fish, like you do in your
report, simply isn't good enough: there's enormous amounts of articles
on stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds, and thousands of
articles on fish behaviour in captivity - and yet *none* of all these
ethologists seem to see what you see *everywhere*.


Personally, I believe a case can be made for some species of fish
being unsuitable for captivity. I _know_ a case can be made that fish
are sometimes kept in poor quarters or in polluted water or with
unsuitable tankmates, also in public aquaria. And making a case like
that would be a good thing. Also public aquaria need to take care of
their animals.

But that is not what you're doing.

You're making the point that captive fish are suffering from _boredom
and understimulation_, and that this is evidenced by stereotypical
actions, and you massage, misunderstand, and misconstrue data and
literature to support your point.

>Jordi

[luminos]

Mean,

This individual has no background in experimental science and believes
because she has a minor degree in zoology she is equipped to opine about
everything animal. There are absolutely no operational definitions in the
article, the obeservational techniques are laughable, the bias palpable, the
statistics infintile, and the conclusions pure pop psychology.


"Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
...
> Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
> Unto All:
>
> (For some reason I've not received your earlier responses other than
> as snippets in other peoples replies. If there was something you
> wanted me to see, you may want to resend or mail it to me.)
>
> Anyway, I've a question for you: your main criticism in both this
> report and in the previous, very similar, report on the plight of fish
> in Scottish pet shops, is that you claim to find stereotypical
> behaviour in captive fish.
>
> Thing is, there are hardly any documented cases of stereotypical
> behaviour in fish, anywhere, by anyone, ever, except in conjunction
> with diseases which affect the central nervous system - but you find
> stereotypical behaviour everywhere.
>
> I am of course aware of the literature on, and have personlly often
> seen, stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds - but I do not
> believe I have ever, in thirty years of fish keeping, seen
> stereotypical behaviour in fish. And as you say stereotypical
> behaviour is easy to spot.
>
> The behaviours you describe - e.g. scratching against objects
> repeatedly ("stereotypical flashing"), "breaking the surface", or
> swimming in circles, and attacking the glass... they are all
> explainable by other factors, which you give no indication of having
> investigated.
> For example, repetitive flashing results from any persistent
> irritation of the skin, often parasites but any irritant (e.g. pH
> shifts) can cause this; "breaking the surface" can have any number of
> causes, from the fish being used to being hand-fed at the surface (as
> is done with fish in petting-tanks, so they'll come close and let
> people touch them), via oxygen shortage, to various avoidance
> behaviours; constant swimming is the natural state of being for
> pelagic fish, and in a restricted space they _must_ swim in circle (or
> back and forth, or against current); attacking against the glass is a
> common behaviour for territorial fish, as the aquarium is more
> brightly lit than the room outside, and the fish therefore sees its
> reflection in the glass.
>
> The thing is, the behaviours aren't irrational, and if you take away
> the immediate cause, the behaviour stops. Give the pelagic fish room,
> and they immediately swim in a straight line. Medicate the fish and/or
> improve water quality, and the flashing stops. Light up the room and
> the aggressive fish calms down. Feed through a tube and the fish stop
> scouting the surface for food (they'll instead, quite rationally, wait
> by the tube).
>
> This, in turn, mean that while some of these behaviours have causes
> which no doubt are stressful for the fish (e.g. fighting the
> relentless aggressor in the glass, or having an itching parasite
> infection) _it's not stereotypical behaviour_.
>
> At least not necessarily so, and you've done nothing to show that it
> is.
>
> Frankly it is beyond me how you can conclude that a fish which is
> scratching itself is displaying stereotypical behaviour (ie performing
> a repetitive non-functional act out of boredom, understimulation or
> psychosis) without doing basic things such as having checked the fish
> for parasites or measured the ammonia level of the water!
>
> This is part of my criticism against your report. You're clearly not
> sufficiently familiar with fish behaviour, normal or otherwise, to
> tell if their behaviour is normal, rational responses to their captive
> environment, or symptoms of psychological distress.
>
>
> Another, more serious criticism, is that you gloss over the serious
> fundamental problem with your theory: whether fish at all develop
> stereotypical behaviour.
> You, apparently purposely, hide the complete lack of support in
> literature by citing irrelevant articles on mammals, neuromotorical
> diseases, and yourself - and these alleged stereotypical behaviours is
> the very core of your article, the very means by which you determine
> if the fish are suffering!
>
>
> The very first thing you need to do is establish that stereotypical
> behaviour in fish _at all exist_. Outside the realm of neuromotorical
> diseases, anyway.
>
> Blaming insufficient study, cultural bias or the unwillingness of
> fishermen to believe in the suffering of fish, like you do in your
> report, simply isn't good enough: there's enormous amounts of articles
> on stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds, and thousands of
> articles on fish behaviour in captivity - and yet *none* of all these
> ethologists seem to see what you see *everywhere*.
>
>
> Personally, I believe a case can be made for some species of fish
> being unsuitable for captivity. I _know_ a case can be made that fish
> are sometimes kept in poor quarters or in polluted water or with
> unsuitable tankmates, also in public aquaria. And making a case like
> that would be a good thing. Also public aquaria need to take care of
> their animals.
>
> But that is not what you're doing.
>
> You're making the point that captive fish are suffering from _boredom
> and understimulation_, and that this is evidenced by stereotypical
> actions, and you massage, misunderstand, and misconstrue data and
> literature to support your point.
>
>>Jordi
>

[Jordi Casamitjana]

Mean_Chlorine > wrote in message >...
> Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
> Unto All:

> Thing is, there are hardly any documented cases of stereotypical
> behaviour in fish, anywhere, by anyone, ever, except in conjunction
> with diseases which affect the central nervous system - but you find
> stereotypical behaviour everywhere.

I already have replied to you on this one, but I do not mind do it
again: If you had read properly the report you would nave seen that
one of the findings of the study is that the UK public aquarium
industry as a whole publishes an average of one scientific paper every
30 years (and
it is supposed to be one of the most 'scientific' public aquaria
industry of the world). Since stereotypic behaviour does not occur in
the wild, and as shown almost no scientific research in public aquaria
is published (the only research that takes place is on husbandry
methods undertaken by aquaria staff, who never would 'admit' the
existence of abnormal behaviour in aquarium fish for obvious reasons)
is it then that surprising that there are not many papers on
stereotypic behaviour on fish?

Besides, since when the lack of publication about something equates
that such something is false?

>
> I am of course aware of the literature on, and have personlly often
> seen, stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds - but I do not
> believe I have ever, in thirty years of fish keeping, seen
> stereotypical behaviour in fish. And as you say stereotypical
> behaviour is easy to spot.

I think you may be suffering of a classic case of 'trade block'. With
this I mean that people working all the time very close to a subject
does not see it objectively anymore, and develops all sort of
explanations and justifications that effectively make him/her 'blind'
to the obvious. I am sure you have seen stereotypic behaviour in fish
very often, but you just do not think it is stereotypic because that
would be something 'bad' for you to admit it (perhaps even
sub-conscientiously). If you think in the behaviour of a stereotypic
mammal that you accept being stereotypic, and compare it to the one in
fish you do not accept so, you will find not only that they are
fundamentally the same (and most objective people would agree), but
that the mammal 'keeper' would use the same arguments to deny
stereotypy on his/her animal that you use for ‘yours’.

> For example, repetitive flashing results from any persistent
> irritation of the skin, often parasites but any irritant (e.g. pH
> shifts) can cause this;

All this is in the report. You refer to ‘flashing’, while
I refer to ‘stereotypic flashing’. All stereotypic
behaviours have the base on a ‘normal’ behaviour that now
appears out of context or modified in intensity or frequency. For
example, you probably are able to admit that a pacing cat up and down
a cage (the classic stereotypic example) is indeed stereotypic.
However, what the cat does is just ‘walking’, does it not?
It is how often he walks, where and why (he is not really going
anywhere) what make us differentiate walking from pacing. Equally, it
is the frequency and context what makes us differentiate
‘flashing’ from ‘stereotypic flashing’.

> constant swimming is the natural state of being for
> pelagic fish, and in a restricted space they _must_ swim in circle (or
> back and forth, or against current);

None of the cases of circling described are from pelagic fish.
You do not seem to have a clear idea of what stereotypic behaviour is.
It is a type of abnormal behaviour, and because of this it is not
normally seen in the wild. Captive conditions cause, for the
restriction of space you mention, such behaviour to appear, and
because they happen again and again the animal gets
‘fixed’ on them (which is the basis for considering the
behaviour as a good indicator of animal welfare problems).

Have you seen the examples of stereotypic behaviour in the video clips
of the CAPS website (http://www.captiveanimals.org/aquarium/suffering.htm).
Are you telling me that you do not consider them stereotypic, having
into account what the definition of stereotypic behaviour is? Are you
telling me that the case of red-tailed catfish circling can be
explained because “pelagic fish, and in a restricted space they
_must_ swim in circle”?

> attacking against the glass is a
> common behaviour for territorial fish, as the aquarium is more
> brightly lit than the room outside, and the fish therefore sees its
> reflection in the glass.

Does this make it non-stereotypic?. Does this means that you do not
accept ITB (Interaction with Transparent Boundaries) in other animals
either (also found in territorial animals facing a glass)?

> Give the pelagic fish room,
> and they immediately swim in a straight line.

The majority of stereotypic cases found are not found in pelagic fish
(as you can see in page 34 of the report), so your argument crumbles
there.

> Feed through a tube and the fish stop scouting the surface for food (they'll > instead, quite rationally, wait by the tube).

You seem you have not read Scott & Rollison 1999 study that
contradicts what you just said.

> Frankly it is beyond me how you can conclude that a fish which is
> scratching itself is displaying stereotypical behaviour (ie performing
> a repetitive non-functional act out of boredom, understimulation or
> psychosis) without doing basic things such as having checked the fish
> for parasites or measured the ammonia level of the water!

By observing the frequency, context and intensity one can have an
assessment of how likely such behaviour is stereotypic or not.
However, you have been clearly misleading us in concentrating your
criticism precisely in this behaviour more than the others, ignoring
what I said about it in the report (I made all calculations including
stereotypic flashing and not including it, so to accommodate all
sceptics, and the results do not change significantly). So, while I
recognise that some cases of flashing may not be stereotypic (and
include such consideration in the report in numerous occasions), you
seem not to be able to recognise that some may be (“without
doing basic things such as having checked the fish for parasites or
measured the ammonia level of the water either”—nor even
having seen the cases yourself!)

> Another, more serious criticism, is that you gloss over the serious
> fundamental problem with your theory: whether fish at all develop
> stereotypical behaviour.
> You, apparently purposely, hide the complete lack of support in
> literature by citing irrelevant articles on mammals, neuromotorical
> diseases, and yourself - and these alleged stereotypical behaviours is
> the very core of your article, the very means by which you determine
> if the fish are suffering!

I am basically ethnologist, and if you are familiar with this
discipline you will know that it is based on comparing behaviours
across species and types of animals. Believe it or not, you can find
aggressive behaviour in birds, mammals and even fish, as you can find
predatory behaviour, nesting behaviour, ritualised behaviour, acoustic
communication, social behaviour, etc. Why not stereotypic behaviour?

> The very first thing you need to do is establish that stereotypical
> behaviour in fish _at all exist_. Outside the realm of neuromotorical
> diseases, anyway.

I have done. I have seen it, and I have recorded it for anyone to see.
I have analysed it, I have described it, I have compared it with
accepted cases, and I have discussed its forms and even its potential
cause and genesis. It is up to everyone else to agree or disagree with
me, to discus it further or to prove me wrong.

> there's enormous amounts of articles
> on stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds, and thousands of
> articles on fish behaviour in captivity - and yet *none* of all these
> ethologists seem to see what you see *everywhere*.

You know perfectly well that published scientific material follows
‘fashion’ and ‘schools of thought’. There are
reasons (economic, socio-political, etc) why some animals have been
study more than others. However, like in any subject in science, there
always is a time when some subject begins to be investigated when no
much had been done about it before then. This may be the time for
stereotypic behaviour in fish. After all, it is kind of unusual that
two animal protection groups have began paying attention to public
aquaria now after all the years that both public aquaria and animal
protection groups have co-existed.

Jordi

[Mean_Chlorine]

Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
Unto All:

>> Thing is, there are hardly any documented cases of stereotypical
>> behaviour in fish, anywhere, by anyone, ever, except in conjunction
>> with diseases which affect the central nervous system - but you find
>> stereotypical behaviour everywhere.
>
>I already have replied to you on this one, but I do not mind do it
>again: If you had read properly the report you would nave seen that
>one of the findings of the study is that the UK public aquarium
>industry as a whole publishes an average of one scientific paper every
>30 years (and

Totally irrelevant. There are, as I said, thousands of articles on
captive fish behaviour. Again: why don't these hundreds of ethologists
and ichthyologitsts see stereotypic behaviour when it apparently is
widespread?

>industry of the world). Since stereotypic behaviour does not occur in
>the wild, and as shown almost no scientific research in public aquaria
>is published (the only research that takes place is on husbandry
>methods undertaken by aquaria staff, who never would 'admit' the
>existence of abnormal behaviour in aquarium fish for obvious reasons)
>is it then that surprising that there are not many papers on
>stereotypic behaviour on fish?

1) There are many thousand articles of every aspect of fishkeeping,
not least the pathology. It is after all a commercially important
business, much like, say, industrial poultry farming.

2) If stereotypic behaviour was limited to public aquaria the low rate
of publication of british public aquaria might mean something, but
according to you stereotypic behaviour is widespread not only in
public aquaria, but in pet shops as well, and, one must assume,
therefore also in home aquaria. Furthermore, according to you, a quick
glance is sufficient to diagnose stereotypic behaviour in fish.

Don't you agree it's strange that no-one has noticed stereotypic
behaviour in fish before? Especially considering that workers and
researchers seem to have no problem spotting stereotypic behaviour in,
just a random pick, parrots, horses, elephants or even gerbils.

>Besides, since when the lack of publication about something equates
>that such something is false?

No, but it does mean that the burden of proof is on you.

>> I am of course aware of the literature on, and have personlly often
>> seen, stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds - but I do not
>> believe I have ever, in thirty years of fish keeping, seen
>> stereotypical behaviour in fish. And as you say stereotypical
>> behaviour is easy to spot.
>
>I think you may be suffering of a classic case of 'trade block'. With
>this I mean that people working all the time very close to a subject
>does not see it objectively anymore, and develops all sort of
>explanations and justifications that effectively make him/her 'blind'
>to the obvious. I am sure you have seen stereotypic behaviour in fish
>very often, but you just do not think it is stereotypic because that
>would be something 'bad' for you to admit it (perhaps even
>sub-conscientiously).

Well I thank you for this analysis of my psyche, but I'm afraid that
does not qualify as proof.

However, I have seen the _behaviours_ you've seen.

I've seen what you call 'spiralling', and consider the most severe
instance of stereotypic behaviour, a couple of times.
All of them were death struggles, the very final hours of the life of
a fish so sick it was losing equilibrium.

I have seen 'stereotypic flashing'. Most of the time this alleged
psychopathological behaviour could be cured within a few hours simply
by adding 25 ppt of formalin and malachite green to the tank, but in
one case it was caused of a hung valve in a calcium hydroxide
dispenser and abated on its own when the valve was fixed. The
frequency and duration of the flashing was often much higher than on
the videos you've now posted.

>If you think in the behaviour of a stereotypic
>mammal that you accept being stereotypic, and compare it to the one in
>fish you do not accept so, you will find not only that they are
>fundamentally the same (and most objective people would agree), but
>that the mammal 'keeper' would use the same arguments to deny
>stereotypy on his/her animal

But the thing is, they don't.
Again, there's tons of literature, and stereotypic behaviour is easy
to spot. You don't need a PhD to tell that a parrot which compulsively
plucks its own feathers or an elephant which is forever rocking back
and forth are mentally ill. Why would it do so for fish?

>> For example, repetitive flashing results from any persistent
>> irritation of the skin, often parasites but any irritant (e.g. pH
>> shifts) can cause this;
>
>All this is in the report. You refer to ‘flashing’, while
>I refer to ‘stereotypic flashing’. All stereotypic
>behaviours have the base on a ‘normal’ behaviour that now
>appears out of context or modified in intensity or frequency.

And I'm telling you that a fish with ich or which is living in dirty
water may 'flash' every few seconds for hours on end. I've seen it,
and fixed it with water changes or formalin + malachite green
medication.

>> constant swimming is the natural state of being for
>> pelagic fish, and in a restricted space they _must_ swim in circle (or
>> back and forth, or against current);
>
>None of the cases of circling described are from pelagic fish.

I couldn't know that as you don't state which species you see what
behaviour in.

>You do not seem to have a clear idea of what stereotypic behaviour is.
>It is a type of abnormal behaviour, and because of this it is not
>normally seen in the wild. Captive conditions cause, for the
>restriction of space you mention, such behaviour to appear, and
>because they happen again and again the animal gets
>‘fixed’ on them (which is the basis for considering the
>behaviour as a good indicator of animal welfare problems).

Ah, you've posted videos. Let's have a look:

1) Personally I'd say that is a video of a dying fish.
2) Yes, that is what flashing, ie due to parasite infections, looks
like.
3) This one is a possible. Red-tails are 'patrollers', but there is no
obvious reason why he limits his movement to that area. Unless the
fish is waiting for food.
4) At least the first tang is chasing its reflection. You can see how
it swims until it loses the reflection, then turns back. The same may
be the case with the second one.
5) This behaviour is the exact same as in 4, and for the same reason:
it sees its reflection. The reflection is even visible to the camera
this time. Both tangs and puffers are semi-aggressive fish, and will
investigate and/or fight reflections. See if putting out the light in
the tank and lighting a strong light outside the glass wall they're
swimming against, so they can not see their mirror image, does not
stop the behaviour.
6) That plaice is not healthy, although i do not know what's ailing
it. It might be psychotic, I guess, although I suspect the reason is
rather more robust. I'd say that ray is acclimatized to being
hand-fed.
7) Yes, the animals are handled. I do not dispute the existence of
petting tanks. I'm not crazy about them either. Merely touching the
animals don't cause damage, but lifting them out of the water will.

>into account what the definition of stereotypic behaviour is? Are you
>telling me that the case of red-tailed catfish circling can be
>explained because “pelagic fish, and in a restricted space they
>_must_ swim in circle”?

No, the red-tail is a possible. You should investigate it more
thoroughly.

>> attacking against the glass is a
>> common behaviour for territorial fish, as the aquarium is more
>> brightly lit than the room outside, and the fish therefore sees its
>> reflection in the glass.
>
>Does this make it non-stereotypic?

IMO: yes.

>. Does this means that you do not
>accept ITB (Interaction with Transparent Boundaries) in other animals
>either (also found in territorial animals facing a glass)?

It is normal for these fish to eject fish of their own species and sex
from their territory. This is not something brought on by
psychological suffering. If you test you will be able to induce
instant "ITB" like this in pretty much any territorial fish by the
simple expedient of showing them a mirror, _also in the wild_. Are
they then suffering from psychological distress and have developed
stereotypical behaviour? Despite being free?

How about a redbreast male attacking a stuffed redbreast male in it's
territory in the wild - is that stereotypical, or, for a territorial
male redbreast, healthy aggression?

The case for claiming either is stereotypical behaviour is that we,
with our superior intellects, realize that it's pointless to fight a
mirror or a stuffed opponent; the case for saying that it isn't is
that the animal is in fact acting 100% naturally.

>> Feed through a tube and the fish stop scouting the surface for food (they'll > instead, quite rationally, wait by the tube).
>
>You seem you have not read Scott & Rollison 1999 study that
>contradicts what you just said.

You mean the article in wich they find that doing pretty much this
strongly reduced 'surfacing' in rays?
Personally I find it strange that a purported stereotypical behaviour
responds to a change in feeding strategy, don't you agree?

>> Frankly it is beyond me how you can conclude that a fish which is
>> scratching itself is displaying stereotypical behaviour (ie performing
>> a repetitive non-functional act out of boredom, understimulation or
>> psychosis) without doing basic things such as having checked the fish
>> for parasites or measured the ammonia level of the water!
>
>By observing the frequency, context and intensity one can have an
>assessment of how likely such behaviour is stereotypic or not.

Not without knowledge of normal behaviour or without testing for
alternative causes, no.

>However, you have been clearly misleading us in concentrating your
>criticism precisely in this behaviour more than the others, ignoring
>what I said about it in the report (I made all calculations including
>stereotypic flashing and not including it, so to accommodate all
>sceptics, and the results do not change significantly). So, while I
>recognise that some cases of flashing may not be stereotypic (and
>include such consideration in the report in numerous occasions), you
>seem not to be able to recognise that some may be (“without
>doing basic things such as having checked the fish for parasites or
>measured the ammonia level of the water either”—nor even
>having seen the cases yourself!)

Indeed. Because the burden of proof is not on me.
It is true that I concentrate on the flashing because it is an
instance I know every reasonably experienced fishkeeper will have seen
and know numerous non-psychological reasons for. It is in fact a
behaviour I have frequently seen also in the wild.

>> Another, more serious criticism, is that you gloss over the serious
>> fundamental problem with your theory: whether fish at all develop
>> stereotypical behaviour.
>> You, apparently purposely, hide the complete lack of support in
>> literature by citing irrelevant articles on mammals, neuromotorical
>> diseases, and yourself - and these alleged stereotypical behaviours is
>> the very core of your article, the very means by which you determine
>> if the fish are suffering!
>
>I am basically ethnologist, and if you are familiar with this
>discipline you will know that it is based on comparing behaviours
>across species and types of animals. Believe it or not, you can find
>aggressive behaviour in birds, mammals and even fish, as you can find
>predatory behaviour, nesting behaviour, ritualised behaviour, acoustic
>communication, social behaviour, etc. Why not stereotypic behaviour?

I can find true flight in mammals and birds as well, even in insects,
and yet there are no flying fish. Generalization and extrapolation are
wonderful tools, but can be taken too far.

But why not stereotypic behaviour in fish?
Well, why not? Perhaps they can be bored and understimulated to the
point of psychosis. Perhaps one can find stereotypic behaviour in
fish. I don't know, and you haven't made your case.

>> The very first thing you need to do is establish that stereotypical
>> behaviour in fish _at all exist_. Outside the realm of neuromotorical
>> diseases, anyway.
>
>I have done. I have seen it, and I have recorded it for anyone to see.
>I have analysed it, I have described it, I have compared it with
>accepted cases, and I have discussed its forms and even its potential
>cause and genesis. It is up to everyone else to agree or disagree with
>me, to discus it further or to prove me wrong.

You have seen behaviours which in some cases bear a resemblance to
stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds, and ASSUMED they have
the same basis.

>> there's enormous amounts of articles
>> on stereotypical behaviour in mammals and birds, and thousands of
>> articles on fish behaviour in captivity - and yet *none* of all these
>> ethologists seem to see what you see *everywhere*.
>
>You know perfectly well that published scientific material follows
>‘fashion’ and ‘schools of thought’.

This is true.
It is also true that e.g. Nature will preferentially publish any
article likely to cause controversy, ie articles challenging the
current fashion. In fact, I'd say you'd have an excellent chance of
being published in Nature if you rewrote your article a bit.

>There are
>reasons (economic, socio-political, etc) why some animals have been
>study more than others.

Yes, but fish are in the "more" category. E.g. three-spine stickleback
is among the most intensely studied organisms in all of ethology.

>This may be the time for
>stereotypic behaviour in fish.

Perhaps it is. That makes it all the more important that you
double-check your results for possible other causes, do some
experimentation, re-do your analyses, and *publish in a major
journal*.
Again, if you do the above, I'd say Nature would be a good journal to
submit to.

> After all, it is kind of unusual that
>two animal protection groups have began paying attention to public
>aquaria now after all the years that both public aquaria and animal
>protection groups have co-existed.

Well, I also know that animal protection is prone to fashion, and that
there is considerable contact between organisations, so that in itself
mean little.

>Jordi

[Jordi Casamitjana]

Mean_Chlorine > wrote in message >...
> Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
> Unto All:
>
>>If you had read properly the report you would nave seen that
> >one of the findings of the study is that the UK public aquarium
> >industry as a whole publishes an average of one scientific paper every
> >30 years (and
>
> Totally irrelevant. There are, as I said, thousands of articles on
> captive fish behaviour. Again: why don't these hundreds of ethologists
> and ichthyologitsts see stereotypic behaviour when it apparently is
> widespread?
>

Before the first article on stereotypic behaviour in mammals had been
published there had being thousands of articles on captive mammal
behaviour, none mentioning stereotypy. Why? Because the people that
kept or studied such animals did not ‘see’ such behaviour,
despite being on their noses. The same happens with birds. For many
years there were articles on stereotypic mammals but not on
stereotypic birds. Now, however, more and more articles on stereotypic
birds are emerging. Were ornithologist blind in the past? Where the
‘bird’ collectors were looking at when a bird was pacing
or over-preening? They were saying that these were natural behaviours,
or caused by physical disease (as you are saying about fish)

> >industry of the world). Since stereotypic behaviour does not occur in
> >the wild, and as shown almost no scientific research in public aquaria
> >is published (the only research that takes place is on husbandry
> >methods undertaken by aquaria staff, who never would 'admit' the
> >existence of abnormal behaviour in aquarium fish for obvious reasons)
> >is it then that surprising that there are not many papers on
> >stereotypic behaviour on fish?
>
> 1) There are many thousand articles of every aspect of fishkeeping,
> not least the pathology. It is after all a commercially important
> business, much like, say, industrial poultry farming.

Same could be said about birds, could be not? However, now bird
stereotypy is accepted, while before was not. Besides, there is an
‘invested’ interest to hide animal welfare problems if you
are an industry exploiting them.

> I have seen 'stereotypic flashing'. Most of the time this alleged
> psychopathological behaviour could be cured within a few hours simply
> by adding 25 ppt of formalin and malachite green to the tank, but in
> one case it was caused of a hung valve in a calcium hydroxide
> dispenser and abated on its own when the valve was fixed. The
> frequency and duration of the flashing was often much higher than on
> the videos you've now posted.

I never have said that any of the factors you mention cannot cause
flashing. What I have said, and you seem to have difficulties to
digest, is that in the same way that a primate naturally grooms but
stereotypic over-grooming exists, and a bird naturally preens but
stereotypic over-preening exist, a fish naturally flashes but
stereotypic flashing also does exist. The three cases are the same
type of phenomena (a naturally occurring behaviour that changes its
frequency or appearance either as a result of physical illness, such
as an infection or infestation, OR as a result of the stress of being
kept in captivity).

> >> constant swimming is the natural state of being for
> >> pelagic fish, and in a restricted space they _must_ swim in circle (or
> >> back and forth, or against current);
> >
> >None of the cases of circling described are from pelagic fish.
>
> I couldn't know that as you don't state which species you see what
> behaviour in.

If you could not know, why did you assumed that I saw it in pelagic
animals? If you could not know, why you assumed that I was
automatically wrong?

> 1) Personally I'd say that is a video of a dying fish.

If that fish is still alive and doing it, what would you say about
that?

> 2) Yes, that is what flashing, ie due to parasite infections, looks
> like.

How would stereotypic flashing (if it existed) would look like?

> 3) This one is a possible. Red-tails are 'patrollers', but there is no
> obvious reason why he limits his movement to that area. Unless the
> fish is waiting for food.

Are you FINALLY admitting that a fish can show stereotypic behaviour?
If one can, why not others?

> 4) At least the first tang is chasing its reflection. You can see how
> it swims until it loses the reflection, then turns back. The same may
> be the case with the second one.

Reacting to a reflection does not invalidate the concept of
stereotypia. It reinforces it, having identified what triggered the
behaviour in the first place (and what keeps reinforcing it). This
goes for number 5 also

> 6) That plaice is not healthy, although i do not know what's ailing
> it. It might be psychotic, I guess, although I suspect the reason is
> rather more robust. I'd say that ray is acclimatized to being
> hand-fed.

So, you are prepared to accept the concep that a fish can be
‘psychotic’, but not that a fish can show stereotypic
behaviour (a behaviour that is often seen in, as you say it,
‘psychotic’ animals). As far as hand feeding is concerned,
this may be the cause that triggered the behaviour (as happens with
pacing zoo cats, for example, when their stereotypy is reinforced by
the feeding methods used in zoos)

> >into account what the definition of stereotypic behaviour is? Are you
> >telling me that the case of red-tailed catfish circling can be
> >explained because ‘pelagic’ fish, and in a restricted space they
> >_must_ swim in circle?
>
> No, the red-tail is a possible. You should investigate it more
> thoroughly.

Again, if one is possible, why not others? In fact, you can see
another videoclip of a different red-tailed catifish circling in a pet
shop in the companion animals section of the Advocates for Animals
website. How is that possible, two possible cases and not a single
publication about it?. I am the luckiest man on earth having witness
the only two cases of stereotypic fish in history?

> It is normal for these fish to eject fish of their own species and sex
> from their territory. This is not something brought on by
> psychological suffering. If you test you will be able to induce
> instant "ITB" like this in pretty much any territorial fish by the
> simple expedient of showing them a mirror, _also in the wild_. Are
> they then suffering from psychological distress and have developed
> stereotypical behaviour? Despite being free?
>
> How about a redbreast male attacking a stuffed redbreast male in it's
> territory in the wild - is that stereotypical, or, for a territorial
> male redbreast, healthy aggression?

As said earlier, the difference between a stereotypic behaviour and a
natural one is how ‘fixed’ such behaviour has become, and
how much of its original function has been lost. Many mammals and
birds develop their stereotypy by being presented a particular
stimulus constantly, so what it is initially a natural reaction to the
stimulus, it becomes a fixed (or stereotypic) reaction to it (altering
not only its behaviour, but also its physiology, so the process can be
described as detrimental for the animals).
>
> The case for claiming either is stereotypical behaviour is that we,
> with our superior intellects, realize that it's pointless to fight a
> mirror or a stuffed opponent; the case for saying that it isn't is
> that the animal is in fact acting 100% naturally.

What you are saying is that a complex and evolved brain like ours can
avoid the shortcoming of a captive live by ‘reasoning’,
while a fish brain has not evolved enough to develop the complexity
necessary to deal with it. How can you explain, then, that mammals,
according to you, show more stereotypic behaviour than fish? Would not
a more ‘evolved’ brain be able to tackle better captivity
than a less evolved one? How can fish have a brain perfectly able to
tolerate any of the shortcomings of a captive life so no matter which
conditions we keep them they will function perfectly well, but if you
impose the same conditions to a mammals whose brain should be able to
adapt to a wider range of circumstances then such brain ceases to
function properly? Would not that be against evolutionary principles?

> >> Feed through a tube and the fish stop scouting the surface for food (they'll > instead, quite rationally, wait by the tube).
> >
> >You seem you have not read Scott & Rollison 1999 study that
> >contradicts what you just said.
>
> You mean the article in wich they find that doing pretty much this
> strongly reduced 'surfacing' in rays?

But did not stop it, do not forget.

> Personally I find it strange that a purported stereotypical behaviour
> responds to a change in feeding strategy, don't you agree?

No, most stereotypic behaviours do (hence the ‘behavioural
enrichment’ programmes they prompt)


Jordi

[Mean_Chlorine]

Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
Unto All:

We're clearly not making much progress, so I'll just answer this in
brief.
I stand by my advice to publish any data you have in a major
peer-reviewed journal. The credibility will be greatly enhanced by
this, and I think the peer review will give you many helpful hints on
how to improve the study.

>Before the first article on stereotypic behaviour in mammals had been
>published

....neither the concept nor the terminology existed.
The behaviors were however known, and people had suggested the causes.
They just weren't accepted by the mainstream, to no small part thanks
to that mechanist nut Descartes.

>> 1) There are many thousand articles of every aspect of fishkeeping,
>> not least the pathology. It is after all a commercially important
>> business, much like, say, industrial poultry farming.
>
>Same could be said about birds, could be not? However, now bird
>stereotypy is accepted, while before was not. Besides, there is an
>‘invested’ interest to hide animal welfare problems if you
>are an industry exploiting them.

You really need to cut down on the conspiracies. There are fewer
conspiracies to suppress the Truth than one might think.

Besides, you're missing the point: _you_ make the claim, _you_ need to
establish that stereotypy exist in fish. The burden of proof is on
_you_.

Presently you _assume_ the behaviors you see are stereotypy, you
proceed to _assume_ that the causes of stereotypy is the same in fish
as in mammals, to reach the foregone conclusion that the fish are
suffering from boredom, understimulation and psychosis.

>> I have seen 'stereotypic flashing'. Most of the time this alleged
>> psychopathological behaviour could be cured within a few hours simply
>> by adding 25 ppt of formalin and malachite green to the tank, but in
>> one case it was caused of a hung valve in a calcium hydroxide
>> dispenser and abated on its own when the valve was fixed. The
>> frequency and duration of the flashing was often much higher than on
>> the videos you've now posted.
>
>I never have said that any of the factors you mention cannot cause
>flashing.

Neither have you showed that they are not the reason for *all* the
instances of flashing you've seen. Which you need to do. You need to
show that at least ONE case fulfills all criteria for stereotypy and
is not explainable by other causes.

>Are you FINALLY admitting that a fish can show stereotypic behaviour?
>If one can, why not others?

I have never denied the possibility. I have stated that YOU need to
show that it is the case.

>So, you are prepared to accept the concep that a fish can be
>‘psychotic’, but not that a fish can show stereotypic
>behaviour (a behaviour that is often seen in, as you say it,
>‘psychotic’ animals).

I was actually being facetious, but yes, I would have little problem
accepting the concept of fish bored to psychosis or fish displaying
stereotypic. If you presented a good case for it.

My position has all along been that stereotypy in fish is conceivable,
although I personally consider it unlikely, and unproven.
You claim it exists; I say fine, prove it!

>> How about a redbreast male attacking a stuffed redbreast male in it's
>> territory in the wild - is that stereotypical, or, for a territorial
>> male redbreast, healthy aggression?
>
>As said earlier, the difference between a stereotypic behaviour and a
>natural one is how ‘fixed’ such behaviour has become, and
>how much of its original function has been lost.

But you haven't tested if any of these behaviors are fixed, you've
just assumed they are. Just like you've not checked for possible
alternative explanations, but simply assumed stereotypy. When there is
evidence the behavior might not be fixed (surfacing), or caused by
stereotypy (chasing mirror-image) you ad hoc it away.
You're every bit as blinkered as those thousands of ethologists who
didn't see stereotypy. You've merely reversed the assumption.

[Jordi Casamitjana]

Mean_Chlorine > wrote in message >...
> Thusly (Jordi Casamitjana) Spake
> Unto All:
>
> We're clearly not making much progress, so I'll just answer this in
> brief.

I will be brief also

> Besides, you're missing the point: _you_ make the claim, _you_ need to
> establish that stereotypy exist in fish. The burden of proof is on
> _you_.

This is not a trial. I have interpreted data in one way based on
previous work,common sense, logic, theory and empiracal evidence. Some
of my conclusions are straight forward descriptions, some are opinions
and some are speculation (all cleraly stated as such).The data is out
there for everyone to get their own conclusions, and the method is
cleraly explained for everyone to replicate the study. In science, you
make a case by allowing REPLICABILITY, and you are proved wrong by
other studies that show different results applying the same method. In
science, the burden of proof, I am sorry to say, is on all the
scientific community. You make a case, and if nobody can prove you
wrong for a while, your theory is accepted. That is the way it is, and
that is how all major theories, from the law of gravity to evolution,
have been presented and accepted (or are you really saying that
Darwin's Origin of the Species, for example, just proved evolution
when first published?)

> Presently you _assume_ the behaviors you see are stereotypy, you
> proceed to _assume_ that the causes of stereotypy is the same in fish
> as in mammals, to reach the foregone conclusion that the fish are
> suffering from boredom, understimulation and psychosis.

I never use the concept of boredom, you are; neither I use the concept
of pdychosis. What I do is what is a 'comparative study' across
species. The logic of my argument is: if when animal 'a' does action
'sb' we conclude that 'a' suffers 'x', then if animal 'b' also does
'sb' we can also conclude that 'b' suffers 'x' since the
morphological, physiological, neurological and circumstancial
situation that explains why 'a' suffers 'x' is analogous and/or
homologous to that in 'b'. It is pure logic. And this 'situation' is
not really 'boredom', as you put it, but the three universal
characteristics of captivity: restriction of space, decrease of
stimuli and reduction of choice.

> >> I have seen 'stereotypic flashing'. Most of the time this alleged
> >> psychopathological behaviour could be cured within a few hours simply
> >> by adding 25 ppt of formalin and malachite green to the tank, but in
> >> one case it was caused of a hung valve in a calcium hydroxide
> >> dispenser and abated on its own when the valve was fixed. The
> >> frequency and duration of the flashing was often much higher than on
> >> the videos you've now posted.
> >
> >I never have said that any of the factors you mention cannot cause
> >flashing.
>
> Neither have you showed that they are not the reason for *all* the
> instances of flashing you've seen. Which you need to do. You need to
> show that at least ONE case fulfills all criteria for stereotypy and
> is not explainable by other causes.

In the report I discuss over more than two pages all the reasons to
consider 'stereotypic flashing'. But most importantly (we you seem to
deliverately omiss this), I finish the 'stereotypic flashing' chapter
with the following conclusion:"All these points lead to the conclusion
that it would be worth considering the possibility of the existence of
‘stereotypic flashing’, and although it is possible that
different types of flashing do occur in public aquaria, it is
reasonable to consider in general such behaviour as part of the
‘abnormal behaviour’ repertoire stressed or diseased fish
normally show. However, due to the fact that we cannot really tell
apart the purely parasite flashing from the rest, it is sensible to
make all calculations twice –including or not flashing– to
see if the inclusion of purely parasite flashing in our study alters
significantly the conclusions taken from the data." ...and the results
did not change.

> >Are you FINALLY admitting that a fish can show stereotypic behaviour?
> >If one can, why not others?
>
> I have never denied the possibility. I have stated that YOU need to
> show that it is the case.
>
> >So, you are prepared to accept the concep that a fish can be
> >‘psychotic’, but not that a fish can show stereotypic
> >behaviour (a behaviour that is often seen in, as you say it,
> >‘psychotic’ animals).
>
> I was actually being facetious, but yes, I would have little problem
> accepting the concept of fish bored to psychosis or fish displaying
> stereotypic. If you presented a good case for it.

I think I did, but you are welcomed to remain unconvinced.

> My position has all along been that stereotypy in fish is conceivable,
> although I personally consider it unlikely, and unproven.
> You claim it exists; I say fine, prove it!

You also need to prove why do you think it is unlikely. You must have
some morphological, phisiological, neurological, ethological,
ecological or evolutive evidence to support your opinion (other than,
of course, the lack of published material about it)

> >> How about a redbreast male attacking a stuffed redbreast male in it's
> >> territory in the wild - is that stereotypical, or, for a territorial
> >> male redbreast, healthy aggression?
> >
> >As said earlier, the difference between a stereotypic behaviour and a
> >natural one is how ‘fixed’ such behaviour has become, and
> >how much of its original function has been lost.
>
> But you haven't tested if any of these behaviors are fixed, you've
> just assumed they are. Just like you've not checked for possible
> alternative explanations, but simply assumed stereotypy. When there is
> evidence the behavior might not be fixed (surfacing), or caused by
> stereotypy (chasing mirror-image) you ad hoc it away.
> You're every bit as blinkered as those thousands of ethologists who
> didn't see stereotypy. You've merely reversed the assumption.

I used the logic explained earlier. If by having a few minutes
observation of a particular type of behaviour I can 'predict' the
cases of 'stereotypic behaviour' where the behaviour has been proven
with more in-depth research, if the circumstances of the animal are
the same, and the method of observation is the same, I can infer the
same conclusion without having to study each and every case
individually any further. You criticism is equivalent to criticising a
GP for having diagnosed a disease with a simple consultation (which
most of them do) withought going to all possible available tests in
each and every case.

Jordi