"Victor Martinez" wrote in message
...
Köi-Lö wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion.

Idem.

No fish is going to have a better
QUALITY of life in the limited space of a fishtank than they achieve in
their natural habitat where they evolved. A LONG life is not necessarily
a "happy" or healthy life.

Let's take a simple and common example, shall we? Cardinal tetras. In the
wild they have to forrage for food, escape predators, and then suffocate
in the dry season when their habitat dries up. In my little tank they have
no predators, get food twice a day and they have a life expentance of
several years.

Several years of WHAT though? Boredom? Again, think of the cageless zoo.
The animals that paced themselves into insanity in the zoos also lived much
longer than their wild brethren, but there was little quality to that extra
time.

This I agree with. But nothing can be better than a fish's or animal's
natural habitat for the general welfare of the animal/fish/bird and it's
quality of life. A prime example are the cageless zoos and the reasons
for them.

I think it's dangerous to make a generalization like that across species
as different as fish and mammals. For many species, living in the wild is
a daily struggle for survival.

That they are well suited to........ If they were not, they would have gone
extinct.

In general, I am against imprisonment of higher species for our amusement.

I am as well. I'm also very much against keeping birds in those small cages
most people buy and against lizards and snakes kept in tanks. I've seen
rabbits kept in tiny cages where they had hardly any room to lay down. I've
seen dogs kept in fenced pens so small that were wall to wall feces. And as
for fish. The death rate of those sold in pet shops is astronomical. Most
are dead within a few weeks due to ignorance and other reasons...... hardly
an improvement over nature.
--
KL....
Aquariums since 1952.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*