...So letting them go free in the world (that admittedly they probably don't have any experience with, which isn''t something to be looked over) is abusive, but forcing them to live in a cage their whole life isn't?
I mean, calling it some other word doesn't make it less of a cage. It's a box they're forced to live in in order to contain them and they're prevented from escaping. It's a cage. A "crate" is a nicer word for a cage, a "pen" is a nicer word for a cage, a "carrier" is a nicer word for a cage. So is tank.
And, really? Have you asked them? If the dangers of freedom are so unsurmountable it's worth living literally in the same clear box your whole life, why does anyone ever try to leave? Why do even pets who've lived in captivity their whole lives run away at the first opportunity? Why do feral cats object so strongly to being recaptured? If you imagine a human in that scenario, is it or is it not workable as the basis for a low-grade horror film?
There are always dangers to freedom, and there's always a learning curve when you step out of your cell. The stresses of that change are important and can be mitigated through mutual support in that transition. That doesn't mean you're better off in your prison, or that anyone else has the right to decide that you are.
apologies for late response.
most fish aren't intellectually complex creatures. humans are.
I'm sure you mean well, but this is genocide logic. I will link an essay, not in an educate-yourself sort of way, but just because it'll express my thoughts here much better than I will.
if all fish hated their tanks and desired freedom, most aquarists would be able to recognize that discontent.
the last people that should be trusted to do so.
happy in captivity
The only type of happiness in captivity is a shallow, manufactured, unsettled one. It is the happiness of Wendy's and a constant room temperature of 24 degrees Celsius.
also to note, bettas, of all species, are tropical fish. assuming the OP lives in the US, they would die a slow, painful death in all waters in the country besides maybe florida and stuff, where they would instead either become horribly invasive if they find more betta splendens or be eaten instantly due to their flashy, selectively-bred colors.
That's fair. I wasn't trying to advocate doing such a thing without researching what habitats they'd be best suited to, or the effect on the local ecosystem. But, honestly, what would alternatives be to releasing them (the ones that already exist) somewhere? The needle? Forced sterilization? (The latter being much more popular, to the point of being actively popular.) Some third option, like networks of animal sanctuaries? There's gotta be something that's neither genocidal, ecocidal, nor leaving them to their fates, looming forever ahead of them.
have you ever seen indoor-outdoor cats? very common. they would definitely not come back if this was always true.
I have--I "have" one. Firstly, there are many issues with consent here even if they "come back" -- primarily that they may or may not have ever learned how to take care of themselves without it. I certainly haven't. Secondly, there's a big difference between being able (both physically and in terms of being "allowed") to come and go from a home base as you please and being trapped inside it. chased down any time you happen to get out, if you have some spirit left. tracked down by the local community to be returned back.
(also, sorry op? this sort of conversation probably wasn't really what you had in mind with this thread)
onymous wrote (edited )
I was referring to their tank, the small transparent container they were presumably planning on putting the fish in to live every day until they died, so yes.
Can't speak to that store, but if you did, why not do some research and set them loose in a suitable environment instead? That way they wouldn't have to spend their whole life in a box, and could swim free in the big wide world!