# Poll: Goldfish, Disgusting Hellspawn or Cute Gelatinous Blobs?



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Okay.. Some goldfish are nice looking... Koi are beautiful..

But what the heck is with these Gelatinous Monsters? 








































































Why do they have weird tumors and heads that look like inflated balloons?

Some of them aren't so bad, like this









But for the most part I hate them!


----------



## chiefroastbeef (Feb 14, 2011)

I think these were originally just deformed/abnormal goldfish, and then fish breeders continued to breed out the deformities and got them to look like this. Quite cruel if it is true..


----------



## Daximus (Oct 19, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> But what the heck is with these Gelatinous Monsters?



Sigged.


----------



## proaudio55 (Oct 20, 2011)

chiefroastbeef said:


> I think these were originally just deformed/abnormal goldfish, and then fish breeders continued to breed out the deformities and got them to look like this. Quite cruel if it is true..


Eah, I guess I'm ok with it. I don't see how this is any worse than the "FrankenFish" that are genetically engineered to glow under black lights. (GloFish) 

Thinking about it, what really ticks me off are fish that injected with ink. I'm not a PETA member or anything, but that's really unethical / inhumane.


----------



## iThinman (Nov 20, 2011)

weird feeder fish imo


----------



## synthorange (Feb 1, 2012)

Most of those are hideous, but I do like this black moor. Kinda cute!


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

I like the chubby ryukin feesh. :3 Not a fan of the bulgy eyes, but. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I adore goldfeesh.


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Some of those mutations go back to China pre-glass box fish keeping. I that time goldfish were kept in large pots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/vicky-jg/5974581536/

The upward basing eyes were desired to so the fish would look toward the sky and of course the people viewing from above. Of course fat little fish with mutated short or uselessly long fins will just waddle around in a smaller container, cute to some viewers and certainly not a risk to jump out.


----------



## chiefroastbeef (Feb 14, 2011)

Yep, the Chinese still do the large pots fish keeping in China, seen quite a few of them during my travels.


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

I've keep Ryulens and Orandas(not in the same tank) I've read the Orandas head growth was to give it a more human look.


----------



## ucantimagine (Jan 8, 2012)

I don't even look at goldfish when I go to the LFS. They are so uggggg......lol


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Daximus said:


> Sigged.


Hah awesome... I've never been sigged before!



synthorange said:


> Most of those are hideous, but I do like this black moor. Kinda cute!


Yea I think the blackmoor is the least hideous of them all, somewhat cute.



ucantimagine said:


> I don't even look at goldfish when I go to the LFS. They are so uggggg......lol


I try to avoid them - they make me feel bad.

Products of sick artificial selection.

Kind of like turkeys, breast muscles so big they can't even mate anymore without our help.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

DogFish said:


> I've keep Ryulens and Orandas(not in the same tank) I've read the Orandas head growth was to give it a more human look.


!! But its a fish.. If you wan't something to look more human then maybe you should keep a pet human!

Not a friggen fish with a head tumor!


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

thechibi said:


> I like the chubby ryukin feesh. :3 Not a fan of the bulgy eyes, but. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I adore goldfeesh.


Ryukin are some of the worst!


----------



## nikonD70s (Apr 6, 2008)

if your into goldfish then they are cute and you appreciate them. if not then obvious they are fugly. i used to spend more on golfish then planted tanks and other fish. spent hundreds of dollars on show goldfish. really need to look at show quality goldfish and not the typical fish store goldfish to really appreciate them.

same can be said for flower horns. some people think they are nice while other thinkgs they are tumor fish. just need to learn to appreciate them




























u dont think this face is cute?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

nikonD70s said:


> if your into goldfish then they are cute and you appreciate them. if not then obvious they are fugly. i used to spend more on golfish then planted tanks and other fish. spent hundreds of dollars on show goldfish. really need to look at show quality goldfish and not the typical fish store goldfish to really appreciate them.
> 
> same can be said for flower horns. some people think they are nice while other thinkgs they are tumor fish. just need to learn to appreciate them
> 
> ...


Do the first three have one giant tail fin? I find goldfish to be in the same kind of category as certain bully breeds of dog which are so genetically messed up that they aren't healthy anymore.. It's gross. Humans have an obsession with altering their environments and we take it too far. Goldfish that couldn't run away from a snail they swim so slow or dogs that can't even see because their eyes are so wrinkly, it's all the same and it disgusts me but that's on a moral level, and not something to talk about on this forum as those talks always get people in trouble.

As far as aesthetics they are still gross, albeit the first three look nice but are still deformed...

I find beauty in things that look fit, not things that look like an accident.

Thats the same reason I don't like show betta fish... 


P.S. Why do Goldfish also have such disgusting digestive tracts? 
They poo so much! What the heck is that for? It's like they also have deformed intestinal tracts that can't process anything so they just poop out all their food nearly whole.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

That's more like it.
And then somewhere closer to the goldfish side of things are fancy guppies.. 

I think glofish aren't as bad as goldfish.
Sure they were genetically modified - but all of the genes they originally had, that had purpose, are still there, they still have bodies designed for what they were designed for, except they also have a gene that makes them fluoresce.
Goldfish, Betta, Fancy Guppies - why so much breeding for uselessness?


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> !! But its a fish.. If you wan't something to look more human then maybe you should keep a pet human!
> 
> Not a friggen fish with a head tumor!


That was just offered as background on why the mutations were developed not as the reason I chose to keep those fish. 

If you can get past all the PETAphile emontional silliness for a minute and try to be objective, consider that these fish were genetically modified TOO be aquarium fish. They are a renewable man made fish that does not involve depleting wild populations.

While I don't personally agree with all the varieties, I'm not so ethnocentric that I would disrespect the Chinese cultural view on fish keeping.

That 3rd world "bait minnow" you like so much, lives in what habitat in nature? It lives in how many cubic feet of water? How fast is that water moving?It lives with how many of it's own kind. How big does it get?

So, tell me how you have recreated that fish's natural environment? 

Do you have any idea of the impact on the environment the promotion of your your favorite fish has caused?

***"Though the Government of Kerala banned the fishing and export of the endangered barb, it is yet to be listed under the National Wlidlife Protection Act.
Giving a shot in the arm of the conservationist is the news that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has in 2010 put the fish on their Red list regarded as the most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species since 1963. The species has been assigned Vulnerable (VU) status because of several reasons including restricted extent of occurrence (less than 20,000 sq. km), decline in habitat quality and number of mature individuals."***
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denison's_Barb

Hypocratcy is not a higher path.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

A lot of the goldfish you see aren't show quality fish.
Do a google on quality goldfish and you'll see the 'globby/hellspawn' fishes do actually look interesting.


----------



## hydrophyte (Mar 1, 2009)

I like goldfish. If I had more room here I would have a setup for fancies.


----------



## wendyjo (Feb 20, 2009)

hydrophyte said:


> I like goldfish. If I had more room here I would have a setup for fancies.


Me too, altho I don't like the bubble eyes too much.


----------



## So_Fishy (Jan 16, 2012)

I used to have regular and fancy fan tails and I loved them. They had a lot of personality and I'd have a tank full again if the husband liked them in the least. I'm not really a fan of the ones with the bubbly eyes and brain heads though. I guess you could say my fish keeping hobby started with a gold fish. My little brother came home with one he won at the fair in the ring toss game and I adopted it. Her name was Pebbles and I buried her in a gold box in the back yard when she died years later. But she is responsible for the multiple tanks I have today.


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

I feel weird and horrible for liking goldfish so much.  My favorites are the chubby ryukins really.


----------



## Psionic (Dec 22, 2011)

I love goldfish. One of our tanks is a 60 gallon and it has 3 in it. An orange fan tail and 2 black moor. One of the black moors is a runt and hasn't grown at all in the couple of months that we've had him. 

Goldfish have sentimental value to me. I had a goldfish for 6 years with my boyfriend. It was our pet. We loved it. We would sit there and talk about our tank like it was a soap opera going on in there. A couple of years ago, my boyfriend passed away. Ever since then, I've kept a goldfish. It's just one of those things. It's something that we shared and I don't think I could do without one now.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

DogFish said:


> That was just offered as background on why the mutations were developed not as the reason I chose to keep those fish.
> 
> If you can get past all the PETAphile emontional silliness for a minute and try to be objective, consider that these fish were genetically modified TOO be aquarium fish. They are a renewable man made fish that does not involve depleting wild populations.
> 
> ...


Wow dude, why the personal attack?

It has nothing to do with PETA or emotions, they are just gross - a genetic failure - please do not rebut something I said with an attack on my possible political and moral values. 

I don't care if they are bred to be aquarium fish - nor do I care if english bulldogs are bred to look the way they do - I do care when an english bulldog has health problems as a result of our material and aesthetic desires with no regard to the animals well being. I don't know if these goldfish have health problems, and I know many people disregard fish as being worthy of care or good treatment, but I can't imagine an animal that can barely swim is very happy. 

I do not own a "bait minnow" as you called it.
I do not know its natural habitat.
I do not know how fast the water flows in its natural habitat.
I haven't made any attempt to create its natural habitat, nor do I have any idea about the impact on the environment promotion of said fish has had or any of the other stuff you seemed to insinuate I should know. Thank you.

I posted the picture of that fish because it is a beautiful fish, a prime example of something that is fit for its environment, purposeful.

But thanks for calling me ethnocentric - I could care less about a tradition of keeping a fish in a bowl with no water movement just because its a chinese fishkeeping practice - Its not being ethnocentric - it's called having an opinion based on personal beliefs, ones that I don't think you should be insulting me over. 
Keeping bettas in bowls is some sort of tradition now too, and it also disgusts me. 
I have no problem disrespecting that tradition, don't care who's tradition it is. 
Bettas don't need to be in anything smaller than a 5 gallon tank.
That fish is also


> genetically modified TOO be aquarium fish


 from its original form, but at least it just has long fins and not tumors that cover its eyes and a body so engorged it has to lay on the floor of the aquarium.


----------



## Eldachleich (Jul 9, 2011)

I love goldfish.
But not in tanks...
Too messy for a tank..
They are perfect however for a pond.
Tosakins are my favorite.
Oranda's and ranchu's follow closely behind.
I really like wakin but cant find them anywhere down here...
Almost every pet we keep or own is nothing like its wild counterpart. We've intervened with everything.
I also have alot of respect for the hard work that went into creating them and keeping them.
They are perfect for their purpose.
Their fat bodies and long flowing fins are the perfect shape to be viewed form above. Their bright golden colour is easy to spot as they dart below a lily pad.
They are sociable and friendly.
Their exaggerated shape makes them unlikely to jump and graceful to watch.
To me they are like any dog or cat, shrimp or fish.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Also I looked up show quality goldfish and all I found were that they are even fatter than the regular ones or their tumors are spread out even more.

























Does anyone know what makes them so large?
Is it muscle? A bubble of air? Mutated Swimbladder? A giant water cavity? 
Engorged intestines? I'm really interested to know.


----------



## gelbschnee (Jan 23, 2012)

haha that last picture looks like chickens


----------



## fishyspots (Sep 29, 2011)

Too each his own I guess! Out of over 400 fish in my house, my very favorite is a large black moor that I got at <gasp> Petsmart for $9.99. He's gotten tank upgrades 3 times in the few months I've owned him and getting ready to move him and his buddy to a 75g shortly.
And I also own French Bulldogs (albeit very healthy ones) so guess the man made freaks are just my thing!


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

Personally, I like fish with long, flowy fins the same way that I like long capes.  Now, if the fins are ragged, I don't like them very much. LF white clouds, LF plecos, show guppies, show bettas, butterfly fin koi, LF cherry barbs- I don't think they are deformed just because they have long fins. But goldfish are different because of their distorted body shape, which can affect their swimming ability.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

gelbschnee said:


> haha that last picture looks like chickens


Exactly.








Big ol turkey - couldn't pass on his genes if his life depended on it so we have to do it for them. 


I will say that most breeds of dogs can still hunt, run, be agile, and most "show" dogs aren't much different from regular dogs, cats are still able to hunt and I'd say they are possibly the most alike their wild counterparts size excluded. Shrimp are basically identical to wild shrimp in what they can do, other than that the colors are changed and they aren't as hardy due to inbreeding.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

fishyspots said:


> Too each his own I guess! Out of over 400 fish in my house, my very favorite is a large black moor that I got at <gasp> Petsmart for $9.99. He's gotten tank upgrades 3 times in the few months I've owned him and getting ready to move him and his buddy to a 75g shortly.
> And I also own French Bulldogs (albeit very healthy ones) so guess the man made freaks are just my thing!


I think french/english bulldogs are fine - but we often take it too far with how extreme we try to make their traits, when they have breathing issues or can't see or get sores and infections in their skin folds, it's gone a little too far IMO.



Fishly said:


> Personally, I like fish with long, flowy fins the same way that I like long capes.  Now, if the fins are ragged, I don't like them very much. LF white clouds, LF plecos, show guppies, show bettas, butterfly fin koi, LF cherry barbs- I don't think they are deformed just because they have long fins. But goldfish are different because of their distorted body shape, which can affect their swimming ability.


You like long capes? Where can I get one!
No but I agree, I don't mind the long-fins on many fish.
I'll still say that I don't find it more attractive than the regular versions with the exception of LF plecos. 
Goldfish fins are weird though - they don't look right. It's like it's all one fin sometimes or they have multiple tail fins.


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

Well. I agree the ones who are hurting as a result of their body shouldn't be encouraged. But I had an LFS fancy goldfish who was cute and great.  She lived 4 years and then got cancer.  It definitely made me cry that semester.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

I wouldn't doubt if goldfish have weakened immune systems and higher rates of fatal abnormalities, I have certainly seen a few pictures of fancy goldfish whos mouths were all contorted and twisted, and I wouldn't doubt if some are born with their mouths fused shut from all the weird growth going on with their heads.


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> Wow dude, why the personal attack?
> 
> It has nothing to do with PETA or emotions, they are just gross - a genetic failure - please do not rebut something I said with an attack on my possible political and moral values.



Well just what do you think this is that you posted if not an attach on me for my choice of what fish I've kept in the past???



Chlorophile said:


> !! But its a fish.. If you wan't something to look more human then maybe you should keep a pet human!
> Not a friggen fish with a head tumor!


Maybe next time you put a little more thought in to your posts.


----------



## xjasminex (Jul 26, 2011)

I love goldfish.
Check out my sig...
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they are gross....its not their fault, or mine, or yours, or anybodies anymore really. 

Goldfish are deformed, some more than others and yes this can create health problems for some. But hey, certain breeds of dogs have breed specific health issues and so do humans. Different ethnicity's have ethnic specific heath problems too... 
It also doesnt help that people are ignorant about their care...goldfish are a tough fish to take care of, they require a lot of time. Many goldfish acquire health problems from inadequate care like bad water conditions and inappropriate tank sizes and stocking. 

For instance did you know that the first goldfish in a tank requires 15 gallons and then every goldfish there after needs 10 gallons...or how about that goldfish need 10x the filtration of the tank...so if you have a 50 gallon tank you need a gph of 500...and opposite to common belief is the fact that not all goldfish like cold water...fancies prefer a temp of the mid seventies, single tails prefer their temp in the 60's. Also, that flake food people feed their goldfish is terrible, it is not a balanced diet in the least.

Goldfish can also live ten+ years.....so if a goldfish dies after you have had it for a year or so it could very well mean that you did something to kill it...yes they get tumors but so do we....

Goldfish are great pets, they live a long time and are very personable and fun to watch. They keep growing as they age if provided with the correct conditions so it can be very rewarding knowing you can provide a good environment for them whether its their natural habitat or not. 

Frankly just because you dont like something doesnt mean its gross, it just means that you dont like it.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

DogFish said:


> Well just what do you think this is that you posted if not an attach on me for my choice of what fish I've kept in the past???
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe next time you put a little more thought in to your posts.


Sorry if you thought it was directed towards you - I could see why you would think it was. 
The statement was directed more at breeders, etc, because I understood that you meant that was the reason they were bred to be that way. 
It was the "you" that is used when referring to no body in specific. 

Either way, pretend it was directed at you, you DO keep those fish, I don't keep roseline barbs and you felt the need to insinuate I know nothing of the care for the fish and that I am somehow worse than you, so it is a fair statement.
Albeit I know you don't breed them to look like humans, that is why the statement was directed at people who do. 
I stand by what I said, if "you" want something that looks like human, have a baby or something. 

Anyway, done talking about this - sorry if I offended you. 
Still think it's a messed up hobby though.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

xjasminex said:


> I love goldfish.
> Check out my sig...
> Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they are gross....its not their fault, or mine, or yours, or anybodies anymore really.
> 
> ...


I never knew that something couldn't be gross as long as some people don't find it gross.
It is not that I don't like goldfish, it IS that I think they are gross...
It's an opinion based on personal preference, not the law of the land. 
If you say broccoli is gross, it's because you think it's gross. Not because it is. It's all in the eye of the beholder. 

And as I said before, I'm not okay with breeding dogs for specific deformities that are bad for them either. 

Humans have health problems, but an alien race didn't force people with high rates of ankylosing spondylitis to mate with eachother just because they thought it looked cool to see us hunched over and unable to straighten our spines. No one forces people with a defunct thyroid to breed with each other, predisposing their children to a life of obesity.
Natural health problems are hardly a good excuse for forcing health problems on a breed of animal for our enjoyment. 

I have nothing bad to say about the value they have as pets, a pet is a pet if you love it then great. 

I did know that they need lots of filtration, I wonder why they poo so much?
It's certainly an odd trait, perhaps they also have very inefficient digestive tracts. Do you know if goldfish need an abnormally large amount of food for a fish their size? 

Interestingly enough, you bring up much of the other reasons I don't like goldfish and it is no fault of the fish but instead the people who mass produce them for profit and the companies that sell them without giving adequate information, and also people who get a pet and don't bother to look into adequate care and housing. 
It's the same thing with bettas. 
A pet store would warn you not to put two bettas in the same tank because it's bad for them, they will hurt eachother. 
They will warn you not to peaceful community fish with semi-aggressive fish, but I never hear them say, don't put your betta in that tiny betta home we sell, it needs warm clean water and will get fatty liver disease if it never gets to swim around. 
And I don't know if the goldfish in a bowl thing has died off, but I doubt it has. 
I'm not gonna buy goldfish, or bettas, and support that market until there is no longer a belief that you should put your betta in a vase with some prosperity bamboo sticking in it.


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Chlorophile - No real harm done.


----------



## forester (Mar 12, 2010)

thank u for posting pics nikon ! ^^ i have always wanted to have a coldwater goldfish tank ....that lionhead is beautiful , maybe sooner or later i will . alot of fish are bred selectivly for a desired trait . hell koi can go for crazy amounts of money , down to angels , cherry shrimp ..etc i dont think it si cruel for the animal ,they have been like this long before any of our great granfathers been around


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Another man-made fish: I keep them, I love them --> John 8:7


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

OVT said:


> Another man-made fish: I keep them, I love them --> John 8:7


Red Parrot?


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Never was able to get into Goldfish....... Other then to feed my Lion fish on occasion many many many years ago.


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> I think french/english bulldogs are fine - but we often take it too far with how extreme we try to make their traits, when they have breathing issues or can't see or get sores and infections in their skin folds, it's gone a little too far IMO.


 I don't know a whole lot about English bulldogs, but most frenchies can't give natural birth anymore. They're all born via c-section because their hips aren't wide enough to deal with the puppies heads. 

They also can't swim (they sink)


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Rich Conley said:


> I don't know a whole lot about English bulldogs, but most frenchies can't give natural birth anymore. They're all born via c-section because their hips aren't wide enough to deal with the puppies heads.
> 
> They also can't swim (they sink)


Wow that's awful.


----------



## fishyspots (Sep 29, 2011)

Rich Conley said:


> I don't know a whole lot about English bulldogs, but most frenchies can't give natural birth anymore. They're all born via c-section because their hips aren't wide enough to deal with the puppies heads.
> 
> They also can't swim (they sink)


 
Often neither of them can naturally breed or give birth but some can. I don't breed them and 3 of the ones I have came from rescue. I have four Frenchies and all can run, jump and play with any other breed of dog, none have had or needed any kind of surgery for genetic issues, none have any skin issues, allergies, etc. It's all about how you pick them and care for them. Buying from show breeders that perpetuate the extremes for exhibition in ANY type of animal will usually increase your chances of problems. Been in the horse show industry most of my life and believe me, a lot of them aren't so healthy either!


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

fishyspots said:


> .. Buying from show breeders that perpetuate the extremes for exhibition in ANY type of animal will usually increase your chances of problems...


That's very unfair statement to make lumping in the responsible breeders with the get rich quick puppy millers. I realize "rescue" is very PC right now. But the rescue industry is just becoming a new outlet for culls & puppy mills. 

Those dogs the Rescue Business sell are there for a reason, health problems & training being the largest per cent age. Rescue business are the new dumping grounds for unsold puppy mill cull and unwanted dogs.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

fishyspots said:


> Often neither of them can naturally breed or give birth but some can. I don't breed them and 3 of the ones I have came from rescue. I have four Frenchies and all can run, jump and play with any other breed of dog, none have had or needed any kind of surgery for genetic issues, none have any skin issues, allergies, etc. It's all about how you pick them and care for them. Buying from show breeders that perpetuate the extremes for exhibition in ANY type of animal will usually increase your chances of problems. Been in the horse show industry most of my life and believe me, a lot of them aren't so healthy either!



Thats where the problem is IMO.
If a breed has offspring that aren't worth owning because they will be too much work for the owner, and you have to "pick" the good ones, then something needs to change in the breed. 


We probably don't need to get into morality of dog breeding on this forum - not sure this ok in the rules.


----------



## NWA-Planted (Aug 27, 2011)

Bahaha, that parrot looks super excited OVT!!

Selective breeding can definitely produce some weird things... my question on a lot of it is always "why?"

On another note, I like koi, that is about it, I think they are simply gorgeous fish


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

NWA-Planted said:


> Bahaha, that parrot looks super excited OVT!!
> 
> Selective breeding can definitely produce some weird things... my question on a lot of it is always "why?"
> 
> On another note, I like koi, that is about it, I think they are simply gorgeous fish



I love koi - beautiful beautiful fish - beautiful coloring - I have hand fed Koi and found it to be a very enjoyable experience. They just swim right up to you and poke their heads out of the water - very cute. 
I don't think they are bred much for anything other than nice coloring, maybe longer fins. 

This picture is insane. I think it's a koi, it has barbells....


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Something is not right with that pic. ??? Maybe photoshop edited?


----------



## proaudio55 (Oct 20, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> I love koi - beautiful beautiful fish - beautiful coloring - I have hand fed Koi and found it to be a very enjoyable experience. They just swim right up to you and poke their heads out of the water - very cute.
> I don't think they are bred much for anything other than nice coloring, maybe longer fins.
> 
> This picture is insane. I think it's a koi, it has barbells....


LOL, very nice photoshop job!! The tail is even dipped into the water, I love it! Actually, this may be "forced perspective" . . . done by holding the object very close to the camera.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Photo looks real to me. 
Perhaps the fish he is holding is a prop.
But I see no signs of foul play - Even the reflections are legit. 

Supposedly caught in France - many people have supposedly told stories of the fish and tried to catch it.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Largest Koi Carp on record was also caught in france - weighed 90 pounds.
This one weighs 30 according to the news story. 
I think it's real.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

The do get big but those photos are fake... Look at his fingers compared to his body. He can play tennis with those hands.


----------



## Daximus (Oct 19, 2011)

mistergreen said:


> The do get big but those photos are fake... Look at his fingers compared to his body. He can play tennis with those hands.


It looks like he's just holding the fish way close to the camera. I used to do that when I'd catch bass and show my friends so they would think I was cool. :icon_cool


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Daximus said:


> It looks like he's just holding the fish way close to the camera. I used to do that when I'd catch bass and show my friends so they would think I was cool. :icon_cool


Yes, how many trophy pics tare on outfitter's websites were the people are tiny and the deer is the size of a truck. Maybe not photoshop but certainly not an "honest" pic.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

DogFish said:


> Yes, how many trophy pics tare on outfitter's websites were the people are tiny and the deer is the size of a truck. Maybe not photoshop but certainly not an "honest" pic.


It's actually does look like it's photoshop. Look at the first photo. His torso is missing!


----------



## Daximus (Oct 19, 2011)

mistergreen said:


> It's actually does look like it's photoshop. Look at the first photo. His torso is missing!


Naaa, just a skinny French vegan. :biggrin:


----------



## NWA-Planted (Aug 27, 2011)

Daximus said:


> Naaa, just a skinny French vegan. :biggrin:


 
Yea, I have yet to see a fat one!


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

mistergreen said:


> It's actually does look like it's photoshop. Look at the first photo. His torso is missing!


His knees are up out of the water, he's in a squatting position, probably to make it easier to hold that sucker out in front of him. 
Gonna go with definitely real.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Here is the same guy with this fish








It might be the same one - can't tell cause it's not very golden anymore.
Do they lose their color fast when taken out of wateR?

Here is a giant white one.


----------



## Bunfoo (Jan 14, 2012)

I do like goldfish. Not the lumpy ones, though, they gross me out a bit. I do like comets and common goldfish though. I have four right now in a 20g with a pleco (they came with the tank and will be moved into a pond outdoors when it gets warmer) and I adore them. Even though similar ones are 13 cents at petco, I feel I'd be awfully sad to lose even one of them - more sad than I'd even feel to lose all 9 of my neon tetras, despite one neon tetra costing me 20x more than one of goldfish would have cost.. I love my tetras too, but my goldfish are so full of personality and active, and darn it all if I don't find them very, very cute.

I find the large ones that can't swim to be a bit freaky, but I can't deny I also find them a bit beautiful. It may not be healthy for the fish, but humans have sometimes disfigured standards of beauty, and that is something I can't really change in myself. I like black moors, ryukins, etc. The one with the large eyes I don't like at all, and some with the bubbly heads are kind of cute if only for the fact they seem unreal, like a cartoon almost. I will admit I do love the look of the long-finned fishes of many species, and the bright colors on the goldfish are also appealing to me. I'd never buy one of them, as I don't wish to support further breeding of them, but I do enjoy looking at them whenever I go to the fish store.

I suppose that is one of my guilty pleasures. 

I've also found goldfish poop a lot less when you feed them quality food, not goldfish flakes. Some might call me crazy for doing this, but I often buy several bottles of different fish foods and mix them together. Right now my goldfish eat a mixture of high quality goldfish flakes, crushed pond pellets, crushed hermit crab pellets, high quality betta flakes & pellets, dried bloodworms, and live mosquito larva on occasion, and of course fresh vegetables when I get the chance.

I've never had a problem with swim bladders, and the fish are always active and healthy, eager to eat, and don't actually poop as much as I've seen other goldfish poop. They have been growing like weeds on this food as well. My baby brother has his own goldfish that he feeds strictly goldfish flakes, and that fish cannot stop pooping. I find it is as much in the food as it is in the genetics, probably. Every time I visit him I try to get him to take some of my food and try it, but he is adamant that I should only be feeding the flakes as well. 

I encourage anyone with a goldfish to attempt to feed a mixed food diet and see the results for yourself, if you don't trust me. :fish:


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

In the first picture, the part of the tail in the water is straight down: put your finger in a glass of water and check what it looks like.

What happened to his left fingers?

"I once caught a fish soooo big the picture weighted 20lb"


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

OVT said:


> In the first picture, the part of the tail in the water is straight down: put your finger in a glass of water and check what it looks like.
> 
> What happened to his left fingers?
> 
> "I once caught a fish soooo big the picture weighted 20lb"


His left fingers look fine to me. Can even see fingernails if you zoom in. 

Also the refraction angle you speak of when viewing something under water won't have an effect when viewed from straight on. 
If you were viewing something entering the water at an angle the angle underwater would be changed. But if you are viewing it from the front it will still be a straight line. 
Cue horrible examples with keys and letters.. 

Out of water from side
\
\
Out of water from straight on
|
|
in water from side 
\
|
(except the angle on this one would be actually the other way.. can't type it like that though)
in water from straight on 
|
|

From straight on it would only look slightly larger than the above water version. 
But I don't think you can really tell due to the curve of the tail. 
Look at his left knee, also viewed from straight on, almost definitely not photoshopped, no bends. 

Also the ripples from the tail look very accurate - that wouldn't be easy to photoshop.


----------



## blackandyellow (Jul 1, 2009)

I don´t like the fancy strains, but there are some called comets, which look like a mix between a koi and a goldfish, that have long bodies with long tails (not double but long) and those are gorgeous in Calico Color.

They belong in ponds though.

I do hate cichlid hybrids though. I think they are doing considerable damage to the hobby and risk keeping species pure. And quite honestly I think wild type versions of cichlids are THE most gorgeous of all.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

blackandyellow said:


> I don´t like the fancy strains, but there are some called comets, which look like a mix between a koi and a goldfish, that have long bodies with long tails (not double but long) and those are gorgeous in Calico Color.
> 
> They belong in ponds though.
> 
> I do hate cichlid hybrids though. I think they are doing considerable damage to the hobby and risk keeping species pure. And quite honestly I think wild type versions of cichlids are THE most gorgeous of all.


I dislike cichlid hybrids also. 
















To me it represents the "clown puke gravel and plastic ornaments" side of the hobby. 
To each their own but it isn't the kind of aquarium keeping that I like to see.

It seems like the people breeding and buying these should have just gone into saltwater instead - if you wan't showy fish with crazy colors and purple ornaments, then SW fish and corals are the place to be.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> His left fingers look fine to me. Can even see fingernails if you zoom in.
> ...


Thank! I did learn something new today!


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

I honestly like that goldfish live to be up to 25 years or more too. My friends are friends for life.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

OVT said:


> In the first picture, the part of the tail in the water is straight down: put your finger in a glass of water and check what it looks like.
> 
> What happened to his left fingers?


In the second pic, the area around the guy's waist looks a little weird.



OVT said:


> "I once caught a fish soooo big the picture weighted 20lb"


LOL!



Chlorophile said:


> I dislike cichlid hybrids also.
> 
> To me it represents the "clown puke gravel and plastic ornaments" side of the hobby.
> To each their own but it isn't the kind of aquarium keeping that I like to see.
> ...


Dude, what's with the whole "if you want color you should go saltwater" thing? Have you never seen a killifish?



















There are a lot of freshwater fish that are very brightly colored even in their wild form:















































You might say that with all those awesome wild colors, there's no reason to selectively breed for certain colors. I disagree. Part of the reason these fish have such bright colors is because of environmentally-based "selective breeding". Whichever traits help them have greater survival or reproductive rates will be passed on, whether it's bright or dark color or fin shape or any of several other physical traits.

When you take a fish out of its natural environment, why should you continue to breed for those traits that will help it survive in the wild if it now needs to survive in an aquarium? Nitrate, high or low pH, crowding, shipping/acclimation stress, dry food- those are all things to which captive fish must adapt. They also are affected by marketing pressure- the closest captive counterpart to predation. If a fish species is going to thrive in captivity, it usually has to have brighter color. Those that have the brightest colors are usually the most popular, and thus, the most successful.

Hybridizing doesn't affect natural populations, nor does genetic modification (e.g. GloFish) unless people (illegally) release them into the wild. So what's wrong with it?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Fishly said:


> In the second pic, the area around the guy's waist looks a little weird.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say if you want color you need a saltwater tank. 
It just seems like if you wan't things to be really flashy and in my personal opinion, gaudy, then you should go with saltwater. 
That is my personal opinion, ill founded, closed minded, whatever you may call it. 
Killi fish are nice fish but I don't keep them cause they jump like mad. 

Nothing wrong with selecting for a fish that can tolerate captive conditions better - I just don't like fish that are selectively bred for weird mutations. They seem unnatural and that isn't something I like. 
It's a a taste preference just like any other - I don't like things that look like they shouldn't exist. 

Btw I love those wild betta fish, wish I had a tank that I'd be okay with having a Macrostoma in. 

Lots of cichlids look great - but theres a pretty big difference between this color morph








And this one









Do they have a head tumor in the wild? Does said tumor help them with their ability to cope with "Nitrate, high or low pH, crowding, shipping/acclimation stress, (eating) dry food?"
Like I said, I have no problem with selecting the hardiest fish to breed, or the brightest, etc. 
Not fond of abnormal growths though. 
Wouldn't like a dog with a fifth leg, don't like goldfish with an extra tail fin.

Again this is all personal taste, not trying to diss on anyone who loves these animals. 
But for me, it's depressing to support that kind of breeding - this is the same reason I would never buy a betta - the more people who buy them the more dead ones I'm gonna see in cups at petco.

The thing about breeding is that if a breeder sees an extreme trait, it doesn't really matter what it is - he selects for it. 
We just love superlatives. 

If a fish is extra gross compared to the rest, breed it with the next grossest one - of course the breeder may not see it as gross. But either way it's all about extremes.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

In other news - this is the 11th most viewed thread in the general planted discussion category!


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

Chlorophile said:


> I didn't say if you want color you need a saltwater tank.
> It just seems like if you wan't things to be really flashy and in my personal opinion, gaudy, then you should go with saltwater.
> That is my personal opinion, ill founded, closed minded, whatever you may call it.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with your personal taste. Mine is different, of course, but it's vanilla vs. chocolate, that's all. 

I like bright colors and striking patterns. When I was a child, whenever I drew or colored a picture I hated to use the same shade of color twice. My ideal aquarium would have five male guppies of each of twenty colors in it. All my life, color has inspired me, and that comes out in my aquariums. To hear that brightly colored fish look gaudy in an aquarium is a little depressing to me, but I know that not everyone is as interested as I am in color for the sake of color. If you're one of those people, I respect that.



Chlorophile said:


> Do they [flowerhorns] have a head tumor in the wild? Does said tumor help them with their ability to cope with "Nitrate, high or low pH, crowding, shipping/acclimation stress, (eating) dry food?"
> Like I said, I have no problem with selecting the hardiest fish to breed, or the brightest, etc.
> Not fond of abnormal growths though.


The "head tumor" or nuchal hump, is called a kok and I think it's a secondary sex trait. It's made of fat, like a camel's hump. Breeders have selectively bred for larger koks, but it isn't an unnatural growth, just a normal one taken to the extreme. Like extra-long fur on a dog. Or red plants. If you have a red plant that would not be red in the wild, is that an abnormal, gaudy mutation, too?


Edit: Here's another fish species that has a nuchal hump. Perfectly normal.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

NWA-Planted said:


> Bahaha, that parrot looks super excited OVT!!


Fish: me == food
Dog: me == food, play, walk
Kids: me == + $$
Wife: me == - $$


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

DogFish said:


> Those dogs the Rescue Business sell are there for a reason, health problems & training being the largest per cent age. Rescue business are the new dumping grounds for unsold puppy mill cull and unwanted dogs.


 I don't see a problem with that. If the puppy mills are being forced to dump puppies on rescues, rather than selling them, they'll go out of business. Thats a good thing. 

I disagree that health and training are the biggest reason for them. The biggest reason is that we have entirely too many dogs/cats in this country, and people still refuse to spay/neuter their animals.


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> This picture is insane. I think it's a koi, it has barbells....


 
Its not shopped. Its just forced perspective. He's holding the fish way out in front of himself, and the camera is close to the fish. 

For some reason, it seems to be big in fishing pictures these days. Everything looks huge.


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

Fishly said:


> The "head tumor" or nuchal hump, is called a kok and I think it's a secondary sex trait. It's made of fat, like a camel's hump. Breeders have selectively bred for larger koks, but it isn't an unnatural growth, just a normal one taken to the extreme...
> 
> Edit: Here's another fish species that has a nuchal hump. Perfectly normal.


The Nuchal hump is a natural feature of some S. American and African rift lake sp. of Cichlids witch in itself is amazing in that they are on different contents.

The head growth of an Oranda is a "tumor" in the clinically sense of the definition. In common culture we associate "tumor" with being cancer related. That is not the case in fancy gold fish. The "wen" or head growth is just skin cells and fat.











The human engineered traits in all domestic animals, fish & plants are recessive traits that man has selectively breed for both form and function.

Of all the genetic engineering humans do fish would be the one that makes the most sense in terms of quality of life. For the most part our fish swim back & forth all day eating & pooping.

The Roseline was presented earlier in the thread. A fish that while natural, is seldom kept in a duplicated natural environment in the aquarium. What quality of life are we providing a fish that has a larger territory, lives in large groups, in fast moving water and that can reach 6" in the wild, when it's in a 20gl tank? Then toss in destroying habitat and decimating wild populations to supply a hobby based on appreciating the natural world? How can that possibly be "better" than fish genetically engineered TOO actually live in a glass box? I don't think one need to be Mr. Spock to see the logic there. :wink:

*** *For the record, I do respect the OPs right to have an opinion based on "Gross & Icky"*
:icon_mrgr


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

There are also plenty of saltwater fish that have nuchal humps. Its a pretty common secondary sex characteristic in fish.


----------



## wendyjo (Feb 20, 2009)

The look on that fishies face is priceless - it's like he's totally thinking OH CRAP!


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

DogFish said:


> How can that possibly be "better" than fish genetically engineered TOO actually live in a glass box? I don't think one need to be Mr. Spock to see the logic there.


 
They're not being bred to live in glass boxes though. They're being bred to look ridiculous. 

Your common goldfish is a much mire robust, healthy animal than your average fancy goldfish, and given proper tank sizes, is much more suited to being kept. 

Almost all of these mutations cause health issues for the fish. Most of the fancies can't even swim properly.


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> I never knew that something couldn't be gross as long as some people don't find it gross.
> It is not that I don't like goldfish, it IS that I think they are gross...
> It's an opinion based on personal preference, not the law of the land.
> If you say broccoli is gross, it's because you think it's gross. Not because it is. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
> ...


Was not gonna post in this thread, but I just can't resist. I find it exceedingly telling how you gloss over Dogfish's point about keeping wild caught fish. Using your human analogy, how would you feel if someone came, kidnapped you away from your home and family, and held you prisoner in a tank? Anything/everything we do in this hobby can be painted as morally reprehensible in some light. Is keeping wild collected fish in any way worse or better than selective breeding? Making these sorts of moralistic judgements is a fast track to hypocrisy. Selective breeding for shape is not ok in your conception, but in another thread you're talking about potentially stocking a tank with wine red or bkk shrimp. So that sort of selective breeding, where the gene pool is so weakened that only a small fraction of juveniles survive in comparison to the wild type taiwan bee, that's ok? How is that any different? I think you should keep your high horsing to yourself, because your own threads show your inability to live up to the judgements you set forth, considering you already have PFR, and are considering other animals that have been tremendously weakened through selective breeding. If you don't like goldfish because of the way they look, then that's your prerogative, but don't go on like it's some sort of moral thing, and that you're somehow better than people that do keep/like goldfish.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

DogFish said:


> The Nuchal hump is a natural feature of some S. American and African rift lake sp. of Cichlids witch in itself is amazing in that they are on different contents.
> 
> The head growth of an Oranda is a "tumor" in the clinically sense of the definition. In common culture we associate "tumor" with being cancer related. That is not the case in fancy gold fish. The "wen" or head growth is just skin cells and fat.
> 
> ...


Fair enough on the humps.
And I completely agree about Roselines - I find them beautiful but it doesn't mean I am okay with the way they are typically kept in an aquarium, and I am at odds with myself on importing wild fish overall because it is a lucrative business for some people in nations without much economic opportunity, and also because I think conservation of these wild species is very important. 
Again, I don't own a roseline barb, I don't have any tanks large enough for them.
I just think they are beautiful.



inka4041 said:


> Was not gonna post in this thread, but I just can't resist. I find it exceedingly telling how you gloss over Dogfish's point about keeping wild caught fish. Using your human analogy, how would you feel if someone came, kidnapped you away from your home and family, and held you prisoner in a tank? Anything/everything we do in this hobby can be painted as morally reprehensible in some light. Is keeping wild collected fish in any way worse or better than selective breeding? Making these sorts of moralistic judgements is a fast track to hypocrisy. Selective breeding for shape is not ok in your conception, but in another thread you're talking about potentially stocking a tank with wine red or bkk shrimp. So that sort of selective breeding, where the gene pool is so weakened that only a small fraction of juveniles survive in comparison to the wild type taiwan bee, that's ok? How is that any different? I think you should keep your high horsing to yourself, because your own threads show your inability to live up to the judgements you set forth, considering you already have PFR, and are considering other animals that have been tremendously weakened through selective breeding. If you don't like goldfish because of the way they look, then that's your prerogative, but don't go on like it's some sort of moral thing, and that you're somehow better than people that do keep/like goldfish.


Well yea, everything we do is reprehensible, so I can't really say anything without being hypocritical. 

Never seen shrimp that can't walk though, never seen any born without claws, never seen any born that don't act just like shrimp. They just look cool and have very specific needs, and as you say yea they aren't as hardy. 
It's completely wrong too, but you have to pick your battles and pass forth any judgement on me that you wish for saying this, but I don't think shrimp have a lot going on up there.

I'm a hypocrite and I think selectively breeding shrimp for color is okay, they aren't being taken from the wild, I'm sure most of the shrimp we own all came from some of the same few original lines of shrimp. 
But the second someone takes a deformed shrimp with a carapace that covers his eyes and starts trying to breed for that, I'm not gonna be okay with it. 

I don't like the cichlid hybrids just because I don't like the way they look and I don't really like exaggerated growths on a fish, a kok I guess is what you guys called it. 

And yea, importing wild fish that are endangered and putting them in a tiny glass box where they normally have miles of range, yea that's awful, not even gonna get into that, we've already discussed dog breeding on here, and then it'll become ethics of importing wild caught fish.. =[


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

Wine red, BKK, Shadow pandas, Bolts, jellies, hulks, the lot of them, are all tibee hybrids. They may not be physically deformed, but they are genetically very very weak compared to the wild stock. A goldfish's mutations, at least, as selected by humans as they are, are still entirely within the NATURAL genetic diversity of the goldfish genome. The double tails, the extra headgrowth, the colors, are all from natural genetic potential. We may be selecting for different traits, but we're not injecting genes from other species, or manipulating them in any way other than selective breeding. In a sense, in the way that they are adaptations that make them more appealing to some humans, and thus cementing the passing on of their genes, the double tail, the headgrowth, the mutated eyes, are all beneficial traits when it comes to ensuring that their genetic material continues to be represented. Hybrid shrimp on the other hand, are an entirely man made construct. Plus, what you said about the shrimp, can be applied to fancy goldfish. They just have special considerations that need to be taken care of. Koks, nuchal humps, that good stuff, as others have said, are also present on natural fish, devoid of any selective breeding. Your aversion to goldfish is entirely a matter of personal taste, nothing more, nothing less. There's no point in trying to make others feel bad for their likes, unless you're looking for the same treatment.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

inka4041 said:


> Wine red, BKK, Shadow pandas, Bolts, jellies, hulks, the lot of them, are all tibee hybrids. They may not be physically deformed, but they are genetically very very weak compared to the wild stock. A goldfish's mutations, at least, as selected by humans as they are, are still entirely within the NATURAL genetic diversity of the goldfish genome. The double tails, the extra headgrowth, the colors, are all from natural genetic potential. We may be selecting for different traits, but we're not injecting genes from other species, or manipulating them in any way other than selective breeding. In a sense, in the way that they are adaptations that make them more appealing to some humans, and thus cementing the passing on of their genes, the double tail, the headgrowth, the mutated eyes, are all beneficial traits when it comes to ensuring that their genetic material continues to be represented. Hybrid shrimp on the other hand, are an entirely man made construct. Plus, what you said about the shrimp, can be applied to fancy goldfish. They just have special considerations that need to be taken care of. Koks, nuchal humps, that good stuff, as others have said, are also present on natural fish, devoid of any selective breeding. Your aversion to goldfish is entirely a matter of personal taste, nothing more, nothing less. There's no point in trying to make others feel bad for their likes, unless you're looking for the same treatment.


Thanks for making it clear what my aversion to goldfish is caused by. 

If I made anyone feel bad for liking goldfish I'm sorry, maybe you secretly have some of the same feelings I do about them. 

I said over and over that this is a matter of personal taste and personal opinion - I have the right to be hypocritical, if I dislike goldfish mutations but love shrimp mutations so be it.
If I find it unethical to breed a fish that can barely swim but don't mind a pretty color morph on a shrimp then yea I'm a hypocrite but I am still allowed to say my part about Goldfish and I should also be allowed to say that I don't like hybrid cichlids that come out looking like they should be in a tank full of clown puke gravel and plastic castles. 

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by what I said. 
I don't mean to insult anyone by expressing my dislike for fish that I find very strange looking. 


BTW, there are such things as new mutations - just because a goldfish was born with a double tail doesn't mean it is a recessive trait that is inherent in all goldfish, the same goes with shrimp color morphs. 

Much of what we see has nothing to do with hybridizing - some of the color morphs are the result of hybridizing two color morphs, which were just new mutations which were selected for but "Hybrid Shrimp" are not any more man made than A goldfish with a double tail or bloated cheeks, those aren't just recessive traits all goldfish had or you would see them show up 25 percent of the time when offspring inherit 2 of that gene. 



> In a sense, in the way that they are adaptations that make them more appealing to some humans, and thus cementing the passing on of their genes, the double tail, the headgrowth, the mutated eyes, are all beneficial traits when it comes to ensuring that their genetic material continues to be represented


How does the same not hold true for shrimp?




> A goldfish's mutations, at least, as selected by humans as they are, are still entirely within the NATURAL genetic diversity of the goldfish genome


Technically, it's all natural.
DNA can be arranged in any pattern it wants for the most part, and that can result in.. well every piece of life on the planet.
A hybrid isn't really much different from selecting for a mutation. 
You're forcing your species to have specific pieces of DNA, of which most would never exist in the wild or would prevent passing on further offspring.
A goldfish that can't swim isn't likely to pass his genes on, I'd argue that some hybrid shrimp probably have a better chance, depending on if their new coloring is a predator magnet or not and if they exist in water parameters that suit their needs. 
That being said a shrimp from taiwan isn't likely to mate with a shrimp from florida in the wild, or wherever the hybrids come from.


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

I don't say that it doesn't hold the same for shrimp, but I'm also not making threads about how I find this or that gross, or this or that is unethical when I don't like the effects, but totally cool when the end product is pleasing to me.


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

I'm all for selective breeding and even going as far as genetic modification, however, I draw the line at breeding that actively inhibits an animal in any way as a result of cosmetic objectives.

Selectively breeding goldfish to the extent that they cannot swim, have trouble eating, or even seeing is not even in the same league as selectively breeding shrimp for specific colors.


----------



## msjinkzd (May 12, 2007)

I am a firm believer in to each their own.

I have a love for fancy goldfish, even those that are pictured. I have no issues with flowerhorn (hybridization needs to be honest, and intentional), I like hybrid shrimp and I love wild caught fish and shrimp. Each and ever has it's merits and worth.

It is not up to me to decide what other's should or should not like, nor up to me to ostracize them for their choices.

It is a big wide world out there


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

TexasCichlid said:


> I'm all for selective breeding and even going as far as genetic modification, however, I draw the line at breeding that actively inhibits an animal in any way as a result of cosmetic objectives.
> 
> Selectively breeding goldfish to the extent that they cannot swim, have trouble eating, or even seeing is not even in the same league as selectively breeding shrimp for specific colors.


You're absolutely right! Goldfish bear a much heavier genetic burden because of our interfering than high end shrimp do. In fact, that's exactly why there are so few goldfish in the world, and tibee hybrids are like 10 for a buck!


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

TexasCichlid said:


> I'm all for selective breeding and even going as far as genetic modification, however, I draw the line at breeding that actively inhibits an animal in any way as a result of cosmetic objectives.
> 
> Selectively breeding goldfish to the extent that they cannot swim, have trouble eating, or even seeing is not even in the same league as selectively breeding shrimp for specific colors.





inka4041 said:


> You're absolutely right! Goldfish bear a much heavier genetic burden because of our interfering than high end shrimp do. In fact, that's exactly why there are so few goldfish in the world, and tibee hybrids are like 10 for a buck!


His is the exact point I've been trying to make, and you praise him for it yet bash me for it because I also add that I find them dis-pleasurable to look at and start a poll about what other people think?

P.S. I didn't start this thread to tell people I find them gross or to tell people its unethical - I started it simply to find out if I was the only person who found them gross and so far the majority of people also find them to be disgusting. 
The conversation we have now occurred unintentionally.


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> His is the exact point I've been trying to make, and you praise him for it yet bash me for it because I also add that I find them dis-pleasurable to look at and start a poll about what other people think?


Oy... Goldfish and sarcasm totally not your thing. Got it. Duly noted. Figured the last part would have given it away, but I guess not.



Chlorophile said:


> P.S. I didn't start this thread to tell people I find them gross or to tell people its unethical - I started it simply to find out if I was the only person who found them gross and so far the majority of people also find them to be disgusting.
> The conversation we have now occurred unintentionally.


Be that as it may, I'm only responding to things you yourself have said in this thread. I guess if you were looking for opinions, then this discussion has been a smashing success.


----------



## msjinkzd (May 12, 2007)

well, the majority voting or commenting on a site dedicated to plants, which largely are not compatible with goldfish, lol. Not necessarily a wide spread demographic.

I wouldn't get too upset. You know what they say about opinions! Everyone has them


----------



## PaulG (Oct 10, 2010)

They're gross. So gross I can barely look at them.


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

inka4041 said:


> You're absolutely right! Goldfish bear a much heavier genetic burden because of our interfering than high end shrimp do. In fact, that's exactly why there are so few goldfish in the world, and tibee hybrids are like 10 for a buck!


Your argument that relative genetic burden is somehow tied to the overall amount of that creature is a weak one, at best. There are many goldfish in the world because they have been popular to keep for hundreds of years. Dwarf freshwater shrimp, on the other hand, have only recently become popular and only with a relatively small subset of aquarium keepers.

I've yet to see selectively bred shrimp that were obviously deformed in such a way that they were impaired in some fashion, and because of that deformity they were more prized than normal ones. I cannot say the same about some goldfish.


----------



## msjinkzd (May 12, 2007)

I have seen many line bred shrimp be MUCH more difficult and slow to breed, much more prone to unexplained deaths and the line bred shrimp live a much shorter life. This is with my limited 6 (it might be 8, i cannot remember) years experience with them. Are they lovely? Absolutely.


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

TexasCichlid said:


> Your argument that relative genetic burden is somehow tied to the overall amount of that creature is a weak one, at best. There are many goldfish in the world because they have been popular to keep for hundreds of years. Dwarf freshwater shrimp, on the other hand, have only recently become popular and only with a relatively small subset of aquarium keepers.
> 
> I've yet to see selectively bred shrimp that were obviously deformed in such a way that they were impaired in some fashion, and because of that deformity they were more prized than normal ones. I cannot say the same about some goldfish.


It was a shorthand example pointing out the obvious difference in levels of fecundity. Goldfish, for all of their handicaps, remain exceedingly fertile fish with a very high rate of survival amongst the fry in captivity. The same cannot be said about tibee hybrid shrimp in any sense. Even considering the large difference in brood size, the percentage of juveniles that die, even given pristine conditions is comparatively high. This, to me at least, speaks to a heavier genetic burden. Being so messed up that you can't even survive is degrees of magnitude worse than being somewhat physically handicapped. At least they get to die young and leave a pretty corpse though, right?

(I edited this part in before seeing Dogfish's post) 20 years ago, the ornamental shrimp hobby was barely even a thing, and look at how many mutations we've already coaxed out of it. Ornamental goldfish have been around since 960ad. Who's to say what ornamental shrimp will look like in 1000+ years?


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

TexasCichlid said:


> I've yet to see selectively bred shrimp that were obviously deformed in such a way that they were impaired in some fashion, and because of that deformity they were more prized than normal ones. I cannot say the same about some goldfish.


I agree with observation on today's pet shrimp. However, the premise is flawed as today's fancy gold fish are a result of selective breeding that started in the Song Dynasty (960–1279).

We can only guess what 800yrs from now these shrimp will be like. 

This whole notion of a modified trait being negative deformity for a fish that will live 20yrs in a 15"x48" glass box is just very hard to comprehend. If they were being returned to nature I would be able to understand the logic of the argument.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Well I don't know what causes the premature lifespan of line bred shrimp, nor do I know if it causes them discomfort during their lives. 
I'd guess that mutations that shorten the lifespan of a goldfish have probably been bred out for the most part over time, that or it is just part of the goldfish's innate DNA to be hardier and less prone to dying. 
I don't know if a lot of the extreme goldfish traits cause them discomfort either. I would assume they don't cause them any pain or anguish as that would cause stress and shorten the life span. 
Goldfish that look so deformed give me a feeling of pity, shrimp don't, and that probably influences my aversion a lot. 

On another note, shrimp have a more challenging life cycle to begin with if not simply because they need to molt and need certain water parameters to do so. 
I think fish and fish eggs are hardier in general.
Survival rates of eggs and of juveniles should decrease more than with fish as you inbreed them more and more. 
Just a hypothesis though.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

Chlorophile, this discussion has gone on several tangents, and I think some of the things you said were never fully addressed, so I'm going to try to address the things that stand out to me. Please understand that I am not picking on you, I just want to settle a few things that slipped through the cracks. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Exact quotes are in blue.


First of all you keep saying that you are a hypocrite. I don't think that you are; you simply have drawn a line in some grey areas and said, "That side is too dark for me," which is what ethics, morals, and philosophy are all about. I will tell you this: it’s very difficult to agree or disagree with someone who has a poorly-defined position, which can often happen when you try to make too many points at once. People may argue with you because they don't understand what you're trying to say, not because they disagree with you.

From what I can tell, you prefer fish whose bright colors are natural, and those that are not so bright as to be reminiscent of "clown puke gravel and plastic castles." That is a preference, and any "debate" about it will simply be others stating that they have a different preference and why. I have already explained my point of view on this, so I won't go into it again.

You clearly state that you do not mind selective breeding, as long as it doesn't affect the health or quality of life of the animal: 

"I don't care if they are bred to be aquarium fish ... i do care when [an animal] has health problems as a result of our material and aesthetic desires with no regard to the animals well being."

"We often take it too far with how extreme we try to make [an animal’s] traits, when they have breathing issues or can't see or get sores and infections in their skin folds, it's gone a little too far."

"If a breed has offspring that aren't worth owning because they will be too much work for the owner, and you have to "pick" the good ones, then something needs to change in the breed."

"I think selectively breeding shrimp for color is okay ... But the second someone takes a deformed shrimp with a carapace that covers his eyes and starts trying to breed for that, i'm not gonna be okay with it."

I strongly agree with this. No matter what kind of animal it is, the traditions of its home country, or the aesthetic preference of its breeder, no one should purposely breed animals to suffer. Even if suffering is only a "side effect" and not a goal, it would be better to lose an ancient breed that had gone bad than it would be to perpetuate pain for the sake of fashion, novelty, money, historical accuracy, or tradition.

On the other hand, you seem to dislike the extremes that selective breeding tends to produce, even if it causes no harm to the animal:

"Goldfish, betta, fancy guppies - why so much breeding for uselessness?"

"That [betta] fish is also [changed] from its original form, but at least it just has long fins..."

"I don't mind the long-fins on many fish. I'll still say that i don't find it more attractive than the regular versions with the exception of lf plecos."

"The thing about breeding is that if a breeder sees an extreme trait, it doesn't really matter what it is - he selects for it. 
We just love superlatives. 

If a fish is extra gross compared to the rest, breed it with the next grossest one - of course the breeder may not see it as gross. But either way it's all about extremes."

This is just personal preference, obviously, but it does conflict with the tone of what I quoted earlier. It seems pretty negative for a statement of pure taste. 

"Much of what we see [in shrimp] has nothing to do with hybridizing - some of the color morphs are the result of hybridizing two color morphs, which were just new mutations which were selected for..." 

There are two kinds of hybrids: species hybrids and strain hybrids. Crossing a CRS (Caridina cantonensis) with a tangerine tiger (Caridina serrata) produces a species hybrid. Crossing a PFR (Neocaridina heteropoda) with a yellow shrimp (Neocaridina heteropoda) produces a strain hybrid.

"...but "hybrid shrimp" are not any more man made than a goldfish with a double tail or bloated cheeks, those aren't just recessive traits all goldfish had or you would see them show up 25 percent of the time when offspring inherit 2 of that gene.

Technically, it's all natural. Dna can be arranged in any pattern it wants for the most part, and that can result in.. Well every piece of life on the planet. A hybrid isn't really much different from selecting for a mutation. You're forcing your species to have specific pieces of dna, of which most would never exist in the wild or would prevent passing on further offspring."

The purpose of selective breeding is to increase the frequency of occurrence of a desired trait. If a mutation is a desired trait, then breeders will breed for the mutation. (Whether or not the mutation is good or attractive is a separate matter.) "Man made" is the name of the game, whether you are breeding hybrid shrimp or long fin goldfish.

"I'd guess that mutations that shorten the lifespan of a goldfish have probably been bred out for the most part over time, that or it is just part of the goldfish's innate dna to be hardier and less prone to dying."

I guess there are some good things about how goldfish have been bred. If they were kept in pots and small ponds at the beginning, the sensitive fish would have died out long before people started breeding for specific body shapes.

"I didn't start this thread to tell people i find [fancy goldfish] gross or to tell people its unethical - i started it simply to find out if i was the only person who found them gross and so far the majority of people also find them to be disgusting."

Your original post asked if people thought the goldfish in the pictures you posted (and those like them) were disgusting or cute. Not whether or not they thought all fancy goldfish were disgusting or cute. And you gave no neutral option in the poll. I don't think those goldfish are very cute (it takes a lot to push the cute button in my brain), but I also don't think they are disgusting, so I didn't vote. I'm sure many other people didn't vote for the same reason, so the votes are probably skewed, even for a forum poll.

"The conversation we have now occurred unintentionally."

Welcome to the discussion side of the forum. As long as no one mentions a certain food beginning with 'W', you should be good.


----------



## pandacory (Apr 18, 2011)

I have never seen good top down shots of goldfish like the ones posted here, and I think I understand why people keep them now.

That said, its just not really my thing. I like athletic and graceful pets. I don't like albino or long fin varieties. I don't think there is anything wrong with breeding to suit, especially if it helps preserve wild populations.

I think goldfish are good pond fish, especially smaller ponds, but I would get the varieties that are good swimmers and look more like mini koi.

My understanding is that it gets too warm here to keep them happy in anything but a chilled tank or deep pond. The chiller means it would probably be cheaper for me to keep discus happy, and they wouldn't eat my plants!

To each his own!


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Fishly said:


> Chlorophile, this discussion has gone on several tangents, and I think some of the things you said were never fully addressed, so I'm going to try to address the things that stand out to me. Please understand that I am not picking on you, I just want to settle a few things that slipped through the cracks. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Exact quotes are in blue.
> 
> 
> First of all you keep saying that you are a hypocrite. I don't think that you are; you simply have drawn a line in some grey areas and said, "That side is too dark for me," which is what ethics, morals, and philosophy are all about. I will tell you this: it’s very difficult to agree or disagree with someone who has a poorly-defined position, which can often happen when you try to make too many points at once. People may argue with you because they don't understand what you're trying to say, not because they disagree with you.
> ...


Thank you, well I guess I should clarify that some of my responses become more or less negative based on what people quoted me on right before that. 

My dislike for the extremes is personal preference, I do like betta fish but I refuse to encourage the breeding of those fish because so many of them will just end up dead in no time at all and live their whole lives in little cups or something.
And yes I know inbred shrimp don't live long either!:icon_redf

Good point about the poll, yea it is definitely a skewed answer, I definitely got more actual posts from people who love goldfish, but I think that's because people who love them were offended and wanted to defend their cute gelatinous blobs and people who find them gross just voted and moved on, maybe a few posted but many people who dislike goldfish don't care about them, I would assume.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Congrats to all who participated - this is the 8th most viewed topic in the general planted tank discussion category!


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

I wonder how views are counted. Is it like on YouTube where you can only "view" something once a day?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

No idea but it's pretty impressive..


----------



## johnson18 (Apr 29, 2011)

Wow, this thread went from do you like goldfish to a whole ethical, moral sh*t slinging debate really quickly. Awesome.... 

I do like fancy goldfish, some better then others. As a kid, I helped my dad turn a big in-ground hot tub into a goldfish pond, built a filtration system and a waterfall. My first experience with live plants too. The fancies can be very beautiful, though some are ugly as can be. 

I guess it really all comes down to personal opinion... 

Whew, I think I may have managed to stay outta the storm that a brewin...


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

Eh. I love goldfish because I've had them when I was little and one kept me company in the dorm after my betta passed on. There are beautiful goldfish out there. With selective breeding, defects do happen - as does overbreeding. I believe that overbreeding to the point of harming the fish is unethical but there is nothing wrong with enjoying a long finned betta or a cute, chubby goldfish OR those awesome colored shreemps.


----------



## Ladayen (Feb 19, 2012)

Honestly my view as a fishkeeper is we should be preserving the species for the inevitable time when they are extinct in the wild. Hopefully at some point humanity will get things straitened out and we can re introduce species we caused to go extinct. To breed for traits such as "popeye" like in black moors that obviously would never work in the wild is just vain. Breeding in an effort to strengthen a species in place of a natural evolution we interrupted may be the best option. In the not so distant future I would imagine cloning to be a viable option in regards to bring species back but they will have lost years of evolution adaptation and their environment will have changed significantly.

As to the chinese culture of goldfish keeping... I wonder what some of the "pioneers" of the song dynasty would think to see the goldfish of today, and crap like this http://www.weirdasianews.com/2008/06/11/goldfish-keyring-with-live-goldfish/ . It's because of stuff like in the article I linked and the general abuse towards goldfish that I would love to see it illegal to import/buy/sell and eventually even possess them. Sadly even if this came to pass I would imagine 10 more species would be nominated to take the place of them.


----------



## snafu (Oct 9, 2004)

i like to think of goldfish as disgusting but cute gelatinous hellspawn blobs. so, i really can't vote one way or another. also, when is a blob not gelatinous?

you want to make it illegal to import/buy/sell and eventually even possess goldfish? that's about the stupidest thing i've ever heard on this forum, and i've heard plenty. maybe i'm being too harsh, maybe it's not the stupidest, but definitely top 6.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

johnson18 said:


> Wow, this thread went from do you like goldfish to a whole ethical, moral sh*t slinging debate really quickly. Awesome....


More like from "Do you hate goldfish?" to "Where is the line between good and bad selective breeding as it relates to goldfish?" 

Selective breeding is a sensitive topic regardless of the species involved. The OP should have known that he was opening a can of worms by starting this thread, especially with phrases like "disgusting hellspawn" and "gelatinous blobs" in the title. The OP started this by stating his opinion, and we kept it going by stating ours. What's wrong with that?



johnson18 said:


> Whew, I think I may have managed to stay outta the storm that a brewin...


Actually, I think we had covered most of the points to be made on this topic, so by posting you stirred the "storm" up again.


----------



## sergio sinay (Nov 12, 2011)

I like some goldfish and i even had some of them in the past.


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

Ladayen said:


> Honestly my view as a fishkeeper is we should be preserving the species for the inevitable time when they are extinct in the wild. Hopefully at some point humanity will get things straitened out and we can re introduce species we caused to go extinct. To breed for traits such as "popeye" like in black moors that obviously would never work in the wild is just vain. Breeding in an effort to strengthen a species in place of a natural evolution we interrupted may be the best option. In the not so distant future I would imagine cloning to be a viable option in regards to bring species back but they will have lost years of evolution adaptation and their environment will have changed significantly.
> .


 None of us keep proper information for our fish to ever be useful for reintroduction. We don't outcross against other peoples fish enough, and we don't really do anything to preserve genetic diversity (in fact, we tend to do the opposite).


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

Not to mention that if a species as hardy and prolific as goldfish goes extinct, I don't think there is much hope for reintroduction of any fish species. Goldfish are like fish roaches; we would probably die out before they did.


----------



## Ladayen (Feb 19, 2012)

snafu said:


> you want to make it illegal to import/buy/sell and eventually even possess goldfish? that's about the stupidest thing i've ever heard on this forum, and i've heard plenty. maybe i'm being too harsh, maybe it's not the stupidest, but definitely top 6.


Not the first person with that idea, it was attempted in San Francisco at one point and restrictions to some degree are frequently being attempted all over the world. Not bad though making top 6 list on my first post to the forums  Hi btw.

As to Rich Conley's comment, that is true but if fish are not breed for a specific trait, and especially not one that would defintely be fatal in the wild it's possible for a group to gather samples from around the world and within a few generations hopefully have a plausible group for reintroduction. 

To the last comment, made by Fishly, Again true but this is also a concern. The goldfish is actually becoming an invasive animal in places it has no natural business being. Through sure hardiness it is outcompeting natural species for food, it is able to eat other organisms that had adapted to virtually all native predators, causing rapid decimation to slow reproducing species.


----------



## snafu (Oct 9, 2004)

i'm glad you could take a joke.  when you first join a forum and submit your first post, you should say things like "plants are good", "i believe in world peace", and "the children are our future. teach them well and let them lead the way". i would wait a few posts before saying stuff like goldfish should be outlawed. just my $0.02. 

ladayen, welcome to the forum!!


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

Ladayen said:


> Honestly my view as a fishkeeper is we should be preserving the species for the inevitable time when they are extinct in the wild. Hopefully at some point humanity will get things straitened out and we can re introduce species we caused to go extinct. To breed for traits such as "popeye" like in black moors that obviously would never work in the wild is just vain. Breeding in an effort to strengthen a species in place of a natural evolution we interrupted may be the best option. In the not so distant future I would imagine cloning to be a viable option in regards to bring species back but they will have lost years of evolution adaptation and their environment will have changed significantly.
> 
> As to the chinese culture of goldfish keeping... I wonder what some of the "pioneers" of the song dynasty would think to see the goldfish of today, and crap like this http://www.weirdasianews.com/2008/06/11/goldfish-keyring-with-live-goldfish/ . It's because of stuff like in the article I linked and the general abuse towards goldfish that I would love to see it illegal to import/buy/sell and eventually even possess them. Sadly even if this came to pass I would imagine 10 more species would be nominated to take the place of them.


As soon as fish start breeding in a captive environment, they begin diverging from their wild populations. The traits that are selected, whether consciously or inadvertently during the process of domestication means that they are immensely unlikely to be suitable for reintroduction into the wild, and that's still before we start thinking about all the alien/non native pathogens they may have been exposed to during their time in captivity. 

As far as your goldfish keyring analogy. What I'm basically gleaning from it is this. Some people beat children. All children should be outlawed.


----------



## florafan (Jan 21, 2006)

....... The goldfish is actually becoming an invasive animal in places it has no natural business being. Through sure hardiness it is outcompeting natural species for food said:


> Need I point out that the goldfish did not jump into these bodies of water themselves.........the people who released them are responsible for this.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

inka4041 said:


> As soon as fish start breeding in a captive environment, they begin diverging from their wild populations. The traits that are selected, whether consciously or inadvertently during the process of domestication means that they are immensely unlikely to be suitable for reintroduction into the wild, and that's still before we start thinking about all the alien/non native pathogens they may have been exposed to during their time in captivity.
> 
> As far as your goldfish keyring analogy. What I'm basically gleaning from it is this. Some people beat children. All children should be outlawed.


No children probably shouldn't be outlawed - at least not the wild varieties.. 
But we should limit the sale of children because many people treat them poorly, do not give them adequate care, are not educated properly to give them the life they deserve, and as a result these people may beat children or release domesticated versions into the wild when they are "bored" of their children. 
:icon_mrgr


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

Imagine a world where all the rules were made to police the dumbest and least responsible among us. Now honestly ask yourself if you really want every choice you were allowed to make to be dictated by the choices people vastly dumber than you MIGHT make.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

inka4041 said:


> Imagine a world where all the rules were made to police the dumbest and least responsible among us. Now honestly ask yourself if you really want every choice you were allowed to make to be dictated by the choices people vastly dumber than you MIGHT make.


That is whats called taking one for the team. 

But I never said ban children, I mean goldfish...


----------



## Budget aquarist (Feb 1, 2011)

proaudio55 said:


> Eah, I guess I'm ok with it. I don't see how this is any worse than the "FrankenFish" that are genetically engineered to glow under black lights. (GloFish)
> 
> Thinking about it, what really ticks me off are fish that injected with ink. I'm not a PETA member or anything, but that's really unethical / inhumane.


actually, glofish were designed by a biotech company in asia to test for bad water conditions. they are bred with a luminescent gene from a certain type of jellyfish which makes them glow as a side effect.


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

Chlorophile said:


> That is whats called taking one for the team.












No. No. A thousand times no. No thanks. Dumb people can find a way to screw anything up. You don't legislate down to the worst in society. That's NOT the answer, because that doesn't leave anything for the rest of us.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

inka4041 said:


> No. No. A thousand times no. No thanks. Dumb people can find a way to screw anything up. You don't legislate down to the worst in society. That's NOT the answer, because that doesn't leave anything for the rest of us.


"Let the dumb die," or so I've said. But they don't kill themselves faster than they reproduce so what can you do.


----------



## thechibi (Jan 20, 2012)

But there's a difference between dumb and ignorant. There's also willful ignorance. :/ As someone who's worked tech support over the phone for about 3 years, I'll take dumb but willing to learn over willfully ignorant any day of the week.

Also, once you get rid of all of our dumb people, then the line for dumb changes... soon there would be no one left. Except maybe the shrimps because they were smart enough to stay out of this whole business and enjoy a salad.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

thechibi said:


> But there's a difference between dumb and ignorant. There's also willful ignorance. :/ As someone who's worked tech support over the phone for about 3 years, I'll take dumb but willing to learn over willfully ignorant any day of the week.
> 
> Also, once you get rid of all of our dumb people, then the line for dumb changes... soon there would be no one left. Except maybe the shrimps because they were smart enough to stay out of this whole business and enjoy a salad.


That is very true - I have heard tech support stories, never rule out the obvious... Sometimes the computer isn't even plugged in...
Alright, the dumb can stay!
Someone close this thread!


----------



## mandm2 (Jan 3, 2012)

Hey on that matter... something is wrong with my goldfish. He(or she) is swimming upside down and can not control where he swims. What is wrong? He is alive i see him breathing. How should I fix this???


----------



## inka4041 (Jul 27, 2008)

mandm2 said:


> Hey on that matter... something is wrong with my goldfish. He(or she) is swimming upside down and can not control where he swims. What is wrong? He is alive i see him breathing. How should I fix this???


You should probably start your own thread in the fish section. Goldfish floating is generally erroneously called swim bladder disease, but is usually the cause of gas buildup in the gut. If you're feeding floating food, or dry food that is expanding in their stomachs, then both of those could be potential causes. Lack of roughage, improper diet, and poor water quality are usually the main culprits. Starve the fish for a day, and feed it exclusively on cooked shelled peas and chopped raw shrimp for a couple days. That should push the gas out of the digestive tract, and give the fish some temporary relief. Without addressing the exact cause of your problem though, the floating will likely return.


----------



## EnigmaticGuppy92 (Jan 31, 2012)

mandm2 said:


> Hey on that matter... something is wrong with my goldfish. He(or she) is swimming upside down and can not control where he swims. What is wrong? He is alive i see him breathing. How should I fix this???


i had this problem with my ryukin i stopped feeding a floating food and it stopped it we had this problem when i was fish farming it is a build up of gas in the gastro intestinal tract just feed a shelled crushed pea as sugested above and feed a sinking food to avoid any problems


----------

