Kaix
07-28-2006, 09:16 AM
This unusual situation first arose several years ago, but it was only last autumn that it really hit the headlines. On 25 and 26 October 2005, newspapers and online news websites carried reports regarding a decision taken by the city council of Rome outlawing the use of goldfish bowls. Several online and chat forums also carried extensive coverage of the subject, with comments ranging from total support…to total rejection.
While Rome hit the headlines in a big way last autumn, it is not the first Italian city to ban goldfish bowls. In fact, Monza, in northern Italy, took the same decision at the end of July 2004, but – for some reason – it never received the widespread attention that the Roman decision has done. The reasons for this are not clear, but the fact that Rome is a more famous and influential city may have something to do with this difference…but I’m only guessing.
Both moves arise from a law passed by the Italian Parliament in July 2004 in which it established large fines, or even jail sentences, for anyone convicted of abandoning his or her pets. Within the overall national law, there is provision for regional and city councils to implement their own regional and local bye-laws and it is within this ambit of regional and local powers that several councils have introduced new animal protection measures.
For example, when Monza introduced its goldfish bowl ban in 2004, it also took steps to outlaw the sale of dyed chicks at fairs, along with the use of small animals being given away as prizes. While the bans on dyed chicks and small animal prizes would have, undoubtedly, found support within many sectors of the pet industry, the goldfish bowl ban is far more open to debate.
In a similar vein to Monza, the Rome bye-law deals with other pets besides fish. For instance, it is now obligatory under the new law for owners to exercise their dogs regularly. Tail docking for aesthetic purposes is also now illegal.
On the question of exercising dogs, Turin has gone a significant step further than Rome and now imposes fines of up to €500 (approx. S$1,000) if owners do not exercise their dogs at least three times a day. I ask myself…how on earth do you police and enforce this? Perhaps the Turin authorities have a secret weapon that they are not telling us about!
Anyway…back to the fish…
Although the ‘big’ news from Rome refers to goldfish bowls, the new regulations also ban the use of aquaria with curved sides, as well as those with a capacity below 30 litres.
The region of Emilia Romagna, for its part, has not banned the use of goldfish bowls, but has introduced minimum requirements, such as 1 litre of water for every 1cm of fish – for species which do not exceed 5cm in total length, and 2 litres for every 1cm of fish whose eventual total length exceeds 5cm. Further, the maximum length that a fish will eventually attain must not exceed 10% of the length of the aquarium.
Some Comments
At the time of the 2004 announcement, a Monza city council official was quoted as saying that: “A fish kept in a bowl has a distorted view of reality…and suffers because of this”.This ‘suffering’ claim – which is totally unsubstantiated in any shape or form – was taken further by a local Rome daily newspaper, Il Messaggero, which reported that bowls cause the fish to go blind! Really?
If the officials genuinely believe such things, where do they obtain such misguided information from?
Surprising as it may sound, it appears that some of the misinformation may have arisen from within the industry itself! Live fish specialists would not, of course, have been the source, since they are well aware of what is…and what is not…acceptable in terms of welfare. But the dry goods sector can sometimes be different and it seems (according to some reports I’ve received from Italy) that well intentioned advertisements placed by some Italy-based dry goods companies may have helped create the impression that goldfish bowls pose welfare problems for fish.
As we know, despite the tremendous progress that has been made worldwide in terms of growing understanding between the aquatic/pet sector and the conservation and animal welfare communities, there are (and will always remain) those who oppose pet keeping and will therefore staunchly – and understandably – defend their deeply-held beliefs if they truly feel that something, e.g. the goldfish bowl, poses a threat to the health of our pets…such as making them go blind.
Unfortunately, this can often make dialogue difficult or almost impossible. It can also lead to situations where local or regional bye-laws will be passed without due consultation with the pet sector…as appears to have been the case in Rome, Turin and Monza. In Emilia Romagna, the aquatic industry was represented by the Italian aquatic industry association, A.I.P.A. but, with other very powerful (and opposing) influences also present, the best that could be achieved…or reasonably expected…was a reduction in the strictness of the regulations.
A similar situation exists in Germany. However, the laws that apply there are nationwide, rather than regional or local, with goldfish bowls and miniature tanks being banned throughout the country. In Britain, its trade association has influenced proceedings by making its own recommendations of a minimum tank size of 4 litres for experienced aquarists and 10 litres for beginners. In Norway, the minimum aquarium size recommended for beginners is no less than 60 litres.
In sharp contrast, no such rules appear to apply in Asia, where small aquaria and various types of bowls are very popular. However, here, they are not normally associated with goldfish, but with small species and varieties of tropical fish, such as danios, tetras, rasboras, guppies, etc.
Are we seriously supposed to believe, then, that members of the Asian ornamental aquatic industry and animal health agencies…or their respective authorities, are uncaring or cruel when it comes to fish welfare? Or do they, perhaps, have a more realistic and balanced view of the whole matter?
How Small is Small?
Leaving aside the spurious arguments that a goldfish bowl makes fish go blind, or that aquaria with curved sides are unsuitable for fish (where is the evidence?), I’d like to consider the important question of size.
If a goldfish measuring, say, 5cm, is placed inside a bowl with a diameter of, say, 20cm, there can be little doubt that the bowl is too small. However, if you gradually increase the diameter of the bowl, you will reach a stage where it can no longer be regarded as small. The actual size at which this becomes so is not one that can be easily determined, since much will depend on the expertise of the aquarist, the type of food provided, the size of each feed, the frequency of each feed, the presence or absence of aeration and/or filtration, the volume of water in the bowl, the level to which the bowl is filled with water, the location of the bowl, e.g. in full sunlight or in shade, the ambient temperature, e.g. the season of the year…and so on…and so on…
Now, take a 20cm bowl, add a couple of, say, white cloud mountain minnows (Tanichthys albonubes), plus a few strands of vegetation and light aeration, fill it with water just a little over half full, place it away from direct sunlight, feed an appropriate type and amount of food, i.e. no more food than can be totally consumed within five minutes, and carry out regular maintenance checks.
Is the bowl too small? Well, in the hands of a beginner who has not acquired the basic skills…it might be, but in the hands of an experienced aquarist…it’s unlikely to be. And…is it cruel? One thing is certain: it’s far more difficult to assess if it’s too small or not, than in the case of a 5cm goldfish. Then, if we gradually increase the size of the bowl, we will very soon reach the stage when no-one would say that it is too small.
Here’s another example: is a tank measuring 60cm in length large enough for an oscar (Astronotus ocellatus)? If the oscar measures 5cm, then, of course, it isn’t…always assuming that all other parameters are in order. But, if the oscar is 25cm long, then it most certainly is small.
Even a 3-metre aquarium can be small if it is supposed to house three full-sized arowana (Osteoglossum sp) or dragon fish (Scleropages formosus), two full-grown giant gouramis (Osphronemus goramy), a selection of large South American cichlids, e.g. tucunaré (Cichla ocellaris or C. temensis), some knifefishes (e.g. Chitala sp) and a few large plecos (Hypostomus, Glyptoperichthys and/or Liposarcus)…especially if it isn’t serviced by a proper water-detoxification unit.
While size is, of course, important, the expertise of the person looking after the fish, the type of fish chosen, their size and feeding habits…and all manner of other factors…have a direct bearing as to whether the bowl or tank chosen is too small or not, or if it is cruel or not. Clearly, this has not been taken into consideration by the various Italian authorities when labelling goldfish bowls as “cruel”. It’s not the bowl, but what is put into it and how it is looked after that matters. Viewed in this light, a 3-m tank can also be just as cruel, or just as acceptable, as a bowl.
To give the Italian authorities due credit, they also stress the importance of proper maintenance…and this is, undoubtedly, a positive mark in their favour. Perhaps they could have used this as a starting point, rather than the more emotive, but incomparably less scientific, one of the “cruel” goldfish bowl.
Most experienced aquarists, both at hobby and trade levels, maintain that a vitally important parameter with regards to welfare is the quality of the water. If this is appropriate, then, assuming that matters regarding other aspects of a fish’s life, such as territorial, sedentary/active or shoaling behaviour are taken into account, the container in which the fish are being kept is likely to be adequate.
While Rome hit the headlines in a big way last autumn, it is not the first Italian city to ban goldfish bowls. In fact, Monza, in northern Italy, took the same decision at the end of July 2004, but – for some reason – it never received the widespread attention that the Roman decision has done. The reasons for this are not clear, but the fact that Rome is a more famous and influential city may have something to do with this difference…but I’m only guessing.
Both moves arise from a law passed by the Italian Parliament in July 2004 in which it established large fines, or even jail sentences, for anyone convicted of abandoning his or her pets. Within the overall national law, there is provision for regional and city councils to implement their own regional and local bye-laws and it is within this ambit of regional and local powers that several councils have introduced new animal protection measures.
For example, when Monza introduced its goldfish bowl ban in 2004, it also took steps to outlaw the sale of dyed chicks at fairs, along with the use of small animals being given away as prizes. While the bans on dyed chicks and small animal prizes would have, undoubtedly, found support within many sectors of the pet industry, the goldfish bowl ban is far more open to debate.
In a similar vein to Monza, the Rome bye-law deals with other pets besides fish. For instance, it is now obligatory under the new law for owners to exercise their dogs regularly. Tail docking for aesthetic purposes is also now illegal.
On the question of exercising dogs, Turin has gone a significant step further than Rome and now imposes fines of up to €500 (approx. S$1,000) if owners do not exercise their dogs at least three times a day. I ask myself…how on earth do you police and enforce this? Perhaps the Turin authorities have a secret weapon that they are not telling us about!
Anyway…back to the fish…
Although the ‘big’ news from Rome refers to goldfish bowls, the new regulations also ban the use of aquaria with curved sides, as well as those with a capacity below 30 litres.
The region of Emilia Romagna, for its part, has not banned the use of goldfish bowls, but has introduced minimum requirements, such as 1 litre of water for every 1cm of fish – for species which do not exceed 5cm in total length, and 2 litres for every 1cm of fish whose eventual total length exceeds 5cm. Further, the maximum length that a fish will eventually attain must not exceed 10% of the length of the aquarium.
Some Comments
At the time of the 2004 announcement, a Monza city council official was quoted as saying that: “A fish kept in a bowl has a distorted view of reality…and suffers because of this”.This ‘suffering’ claim – which is totally unsubstantiated in any shape or form – was taken further by a local Rome daily newspaper, Il Messaggero, which reported that bowls cause the fish to go blind! Really?
If the officials genuinely believe such things, where do they obtain such misguided information from?
Surprising as it may sound, it appears that some of the misinformation may have arisen from within the industry itself! Live fish specialists would not, of course, have been the source, since they are well aware of what is…and what is not…acceptable in terms of welfare. But the dry goods sector can sometimes be different and it seems (according to some reports I’ve received from Italy) that well intentioned advertisements placed by some Italy-based dry goods companies may have helped create the impression that goldfish bowls pose welfare problems for fish.
As we know, despite the tremendous progress that has been made worldwide in terms of growing understanding between the aquatic/pet sector and the conservation and animal welfare communities, there are (and will always remain) those who oppose pet keeping and will therefore staunchly – and understandably – defend their deeply-held beliefs if they truly feel that something, e.g. the goldfish bowl, poses a threat to the health of our pets…such as making them go blind.
Unfortunately, this can often make dialogue difficult or almost impossible. It can also lead to situations where local or regional bye-laws will be passed without due consultation with the pet sector…as appears to have been the case in Rome, Turin and Monza. In Emilia Romagna, the aquatic industry was represented by the Italian aquatic industry association, A.I.P.A. but, with other very powerful (and opposing) influences also present, the best that could be achieved…or reasonably expected…was a reduction in the strictness of the regulations.
A similar situation exists in Germany. However, the laws that apply there are nationwide, rather than regional or local, with goldfish bowls and miniature tanks being banned throughout the country. In Britain, its trade association has influenced proceedings by making its own recommendations of a minimum tank size of 4 litres for experienced aquarists and 10 litres for beginners. In Norway, the minimum aquarium size recommended for beginners is no less than 60 litres.
In sharp contrast, no such rules appear to apply in Asia, where small aquaria and various types of bowls are very popular. However, here, they are not normally associated with goldfish, but with small species and varieties of tropical fish, such as danios, tetras, rasboras, guppies, etc.
Are we seriously supposed to believe, then, that members of the Asian ornamental aquatic industry and animal health agencies…or their respective authorities, are uncaring or cruel when it comes to fish welfare? Or do they, perhaps, have a more realistic and balanced view of the whole matter?
How Small is Small?
Leaving aside the spurious arguments that a goldfish bowl makes fish go blind, or that aquaria with curved sides are unsuitable for fish (where is the evidence?), I’d like to consider the important question of size.
If a goldfish measuring, say, 5cm, is placed inside a bowl with a diameter of, say, 20cm, there can be little doubt that the bowl is too small. However, if you gradually increase the diameter of the bowl, you will reach a stage where it can no longer be regarded as small. The actual size at which this becomes so is not one that can be easily determined, since much will depend on the expertise of the aquarist, the type of food provided, the size of each feed, the frequency of each feed, the presence or absence of aeration and/or filtration, the volume of water in the bowl, the level to which the bowl is filled with water, the location of the bowl, e.g. in full sunlight or in shade, the ambient temperature, e.g. the season of the year…and so on…and so on…
Now, take a 20cm bowl, add a couple of, say, white cloud mountain minnows (Tanichthys albonubes), plus a few strands of vegetation and light aeration, fill it with water just a little over half full, place it away from direct sunlight, feed an appropriate type and amount of food, i.e. no more food than can be totally consumed within five minutes, and carry out regular maintenance checks.
Is the bowl too small? Well, in the hands of a beginner who has not acquired the basic skills…it might be, but in the hands of an experienced aquarist…it’s unlikely to be. And…is it cruel? One thing is certain: it’s far more difficult to assess if it’s too small or not, than in the case of a 5cm goldfish. Then, if we gradually increase the size of the bowl, we will very soon reach the stage when no-one would say that it is too small.
Here’s another example: is a tank measuring 60cm in length large enough for an oscar (Astronotus ocellatus)? If the oscar measures 5cm, then, of course, it isn’t…always assuming that all other parameters are in order. But, if the oscar is 25cm long, then it most certainly is small.
Even a 3-metre aquarium can be small if it is supposed to house three full-sized arowana (Osteoglossum sp) or dragon fish (Scleropages formosus), two full-grown giant gouramis (Osphronemus goramy), a selection of large South American cichlids, e.g. tucunaré (Cichla ocellaris or C. temensis), some knifefishes (e.g. Chitala sp) and a few large plecos (Hypostomus, Glyptoperichthys and/or Liposarcus)…especially if it isn’t serviced by a proper water-detoxification unit.
While size is, of course, important, the expertise of the person looking after the fish, the type of fish chosen, their size and feeding habits…and all manner of other factors…have a direct bearing as to whether the bowl or tank chosen is too small or not, or if it is cruel or not. Clearly, this has not been taken into consideration by the various Italian authorities when labelling goldfish bowls as “cruel”. It’s not the bowl, but what is put into it and how it is looked after that matters. Viewed in this light, a 3-m tank can also be just as cruel, or just as acceptable, as a bowl.
To give the Italian authorities due credit, they also stress the importance of proper maintenance…and this is, undoubtedly, a positive mark in their favour. Perhaps they could have used this as a starting point, rather than the more emotive, but incomparably less scientific, one of the “cruel” goldfish bowl.
Most experienced aquarists, both at hobby and trade levels, maintain that a vitally important parameter with regards to welfare is the quality of the water. If this is appropriate, then, assuming that matters regarding other aspects of a fish’s life, such as territorial, sedentary/active or shoaling behaviour are taken into account, the container in which the fish are being kept is likely to be adequate.