yes it is harming the fish.
Its not cruel.we just wanna make sure we get a good picture
- Thread starter howeikwok
- Start date
yes it is harming the fish.
allenleonhart
Senior Member
relax a bit. it was just a random thought.
what if its those fugu ur gonna eat? is it right to piss it off first, take a photo then kill?:think:
i'm randomly throwing out senarios that are oddly,possible
but random thoughts are not helping in this case. it's just a case of a diver doing something most other divers think he/she should not be doing. and when confronted online, the person said 'it's not cruel. we just wanna make sure we get a good picture'. which i'm sure most people find silly as a means of justification. not to mention it really isn't a good picture at all.
Knighthunter
Senior Member
I think cruel accusation definitely over rated, he create annoyance or disturbance is yes. I think he irate more to the divers who saw it rather than to the fish.
allenleonhart
Senior Member
hmm. well. just take note that u dun do it urself, and try convince others to not do it thats all lor.
unless u can get international laws to solve this (highly improbable)
and that leads to another can of worms
unless u can get international laws to solve this (highly improbable)
and that leads to another can of worms
the point of me starting the thread is just to highlight an issue. to me the issue is not really about the way the fish is being treated, but how the person feels that there's nothing wrong with the action. we all harm marine life as divers from time to time whether we know it or not.
but most people when told that puffing up the fish actually stresses it and in the long run may cause it's demise would actually stop. people usually get certified to became divers to actually see these creatures and keep seeing them. i don't see how as divers he/she can justify their own behaviour esp when told it's wrong. the response stating that he/she will shake the puffer instead of poking it next time just tells you that he/she feels there's nothing wrong in such actions.
but most people when told that puffing up the fish actually stresses it and in the long run may cause it's demise would actually stop. people usually get certified to became divers to actually see these creatures and keep seeing them. i don't see how as divers he/she can justify their own behaviour esp when told it's wrong. the response stating that he/she will shake the puffer instead of poking it next time just tells you that he/she feels there's nothing wrong in such actions.
oh then please go watch the cove and 'discover' for yourself the amount of toxins and heavy metals that top predators take into their system. your sushi/sashimi is full of mecury esp fish like tuna/swordfish etc.
i'm more careful taking such fish now.
erm you think cos you know how the fish feels? we don't. and because we don't and i know that bloating up stresses the fish as it's a defensive mechanism that's meant for life/death situations, we don't do it just to take a pic.
we see cruel things happening to animals everyday. i wouldn't want hazard a guess how the animal feels if it was treated like that.
Its kind of strange to me.... that alot of us condamn that woman in the YouTube video beating the dog... but thinks its ok to 'Beat a pufferfish' till it puff. :think:
Is it because the dog is much cuter or just plain old Double Standard ?? :nono:
Is it because the dog is much cuter or just plain old Double Standard ?? :nono:
night86mare
Deregistered
well, if you think about it, if people torture the criminals on death row in any country, the world community will still condemn that country. simple, right?
Knighthunter
Senior Member
No need to repeat my statement again even I don't know the feeling of the fish. At least fish still swimming after they left them but on land other divers' rants will continue even after culprit already been advised that is wrong to do that. So now the problem is poking puffer or something else?
Knighthunter
Senior Member
That dog is defendless after becoming pet, try to do the same thing to wild dogs at Charcoal warehouse area and let me know the result. Not double standard the lady done it because she knows the dog will not retailate, if the dog bite her she will never dare to do it the scond time. But it will be sad story for the dog, most likely it will be put to sleep.
it has been documented that when stressed some puffers are unable to release the air and float to the surface and die. this is why it is frowned upon to agitate them to make them puff up. so no, "At least fish still swimming after they left them" is caterogically untrue.
if you are a diver then you should understand that interaction with the marine life could possible cause harm. for example: riding/touching whalesharks will cause stress and hence for them to avoid coming to that area. riding/touching turtles could cause parasite infections, and also even drown the turtle as it is too exhausted to swim to the surface. divers with poor buoyancy breaking coral that takes decades to grow -- and coral forms the bottom of the ecological food chain.
if you think there is nothing wrong with "making the creatures do what you want them to do", then you are a menace to the environment that so many people are trying very hard to protect.
the problems here are:
1. harassing of marine life
2. when told of the consequences, the offending party says "oh its nothing laaaaahhhh i just wanted to take a picture"
it's almost like making a snuff film. "its not cruel, i just wanted to slash her throat so that the blood spray will make a cool picture"
well said..
night86mare
Deregistered
most likely, nope.
the white tigers in the singapore zoo killed a man, but none were put to sleep. why? because they were provoked, and animals will be animals. reasonable people all know that.
when we shoot anything, be it landscapes, cats, birds, even models.. as responsible photographers, you should try to reduce the amount of footprint that you leave there. it is not just out of respect for the subject, there's just something wrong with affecting external parties for your own enjoyment.
so this extends from making sure that you don't dirty the environment when you shoot, if the cat doesn't like cameras then you stop shooting it, no baiting of birds to try to get your shot, and no silly comments that arise from the bottom head than the top because you have a hard-on, etc. the same applies for the puffer fish.
Agreed. It's bad enough the puffer was harrassed. What more the person brushes it off as nothing.
Knighthunter
Senior Member
Sorry, I am not animal expert here, but some blowie/puffer fished out from water bloated on the jetty threw it back to the water it still alive to be fished for the second time it also documented. I was avid fisho when I was living in Perth. If they harrassed/poke/slashed the fish until it float to surface to die is the kiling intention is there. I have to make clearly that I don't condone to such act just to make picture, I am myself will tell the diver should not do that and be responsbile for their actions but resorting to scolding, accusing, or shaming is completely out of context just because he dismissed your advice/warning even worse verbal abuse continue after divers acknowledge the mistake.
This is only can be stopped for repeat offender is banned by resort/dive orgnanizer, but I never see this happen. At the end bottom line figure for resort/dive organizer is the most important.
Last edited:
Knighthunter
Senior Member
I am wonder whether you read the news last time, they consider to put this tiger for good but then again we are living in Singapore. If we killed the tiger do you think they can get replacement by scouting jungle in Bukit Timah for god sake? It just a convinience decision.
why is 'scolding, accusing, or shaming' completely out of the context when there is no sign or remorse or admission of guilt for the action? the said picture had a comment that said it was cruel to harass the puffer fish. and the reply seemed a bit flippant in that there was:
1) denial of accusation (it's not cruel)
2) justification of action (we just wanna make sure we get a good photo)
Even after it was pointed out that the action harmed the fish, the said diver then commented he/she will shake the fish instead of poking it in the future to make it puff up. Showing that
1) he/she does not think it's wrong
2) he/she will do it again in the future
In this instance here, the thread goes not only to so-called shame/scold/accuse (not that i think it has happened here since we don't know the person's name and he/she probably does not visit this forum and hence nobody to accuse/scold/shame in the first place), but also to educate divers on how not to interact/touch/harass marine life.
Plus the thread also has provided people with an idea where some divers stand on certain issues as well as certain useful information is posted. (ie. how a pufferfish can die from 'puffing' up)
1) denial of accusation (it's not cruel)
2) justification of action (we just wanna make sure we get a good photo)
Even after it was pointed out that the action harmed the fish, the said diver then commented he/she will shake the fish instead of poking it in the future to make it puff up. Showing that
1) he/she does not think it's wrong
2) he/she will do it again in the future
In this instance here, the thread goes not only to so-called shame/scold/accuse (not that i think it has happened here since we don't know the person's name and he/she probably does not visit this forum and hence nobody to accuse/scold/shame in the first place), but also to educate divers on how not to interact/touch/harass marine life.
Plus the thread also has provided people with an idea where some divers stand on certain issues as well as certain useful information is posted. (ie. how a pufferfish can die from 'puffing' up)
Similar threads
