The Missing Fish Mystery Poll

[leebca]

Just suppose. . .

A (nameless) very famous movie star calls your local fish store (LFS) and says he/she wants a 500 gallon marine system setup in his/her multi-million dollar home in time for an upcoming party.

Your LFS does the whole job – sets up a living FOWLR system and stocks the system with some expensive, yet relatively hardy marine fishes having gone through quarantine and verified to be healthy and disease free. The project, you can imagine is quite extensive and laborious. The LFS is keeping daily tabs on the system, considering the lack of knowledge and attention the star seems to be giving the system, until it stabilizes.

The party is held. A few days after the party, the famous star calls the LFS and tells the shocked/surprised LFS that he/she now wants to get rid of the aquarium. Reluctantly the LFS agrees to take it all down and back. The LFS is not going to loose any money on the project both setting up nor taking down, but does feel a tinge of being used as well as the marine life being ‘used’ rather than appreciated. That's the concern of the LFS however.

The LFS shows up with his workers only to discover the tank is empty. No fish. The star is asked by the LFS what happened to the fish and the star replies, “We threw them away.” The LFS is led to believe that after the party, not wanting to have to feed or care for the fish, the star had them flushed or discarded by some other means.



If you’re reading this, chances are you are a marine aquarist at some level, or are interested in keeping marine life (reef, fishes, etc.). So, you are a selective audience. The poll I’ve set up is trying to determine what you think about the above star’s activity and whether or not it would have impact upon how you would view the star’s movie career/work.

Thanks for your time! The poll ends the end of August. Please vote for the response that best fits your opinion, and feel free to express any opinion in a post. This poll is not private.

Oh and by the way – the story is true.

 

[leebca]

FYI

1. I thought the 'party people' may have poisoned the water, dropping alcohol, drugs or ? into the water. But the LFS owner said the water was clean!
2. I thought maybe the star just didn't feed the fish. The LFS said they would/should have still been alive when he came to tear down the setup.
3. I thought maybe the party got rowdy and there was some kind of 'catch the fish' game with who-knows-what for a prize. The LFS said that may have been the case.
4. I asked the LFS if he was sure the fish were killed, not just given away. He was fairly sure. He had no proof one way or the other, other than the star saying what he/she did and implying they were dead.
5. Why not tell who it was? I don't have first hand knowledge of this. I trust my LFS friend, but it is only secondhand information. I avoid spreading rumors, especially one that might defame the character of someone famous. You can see how I voted.

 

[Scooterman]

I don't even think I could answer this one, may depend on the actor but ....

 

[Herefishyfishy]

Because I enjoy beating dead horses (not really), Your survey choices had nothing with the Paris Hilton voyeurism effect so to speak as in "I am more interested in following this movie star now"

Though I'm passionate about the hobby, voted #1 as I don't choose my movies based on the actor's personal tastes nor lack of intelligence. I would ONLY be watching Indies in lieu of just mostly.

 

[Reeferdude]

You beat me to it. For the most part what people do in their private life should stay private. I do not support many movie stars political position but I watch their movies because they're good actors/actresses...

 

[Jim Hart]

My wife convinced me to vote this way, she mentioned to me he's lying and sold or gave the fish away to someone at the party. Press charges for your missing fish.

 

[Reeferdude]

I thought about that answer but then figured how could you press charges when the LFS hasn't lost any money (assuming the fish are paid for). The law is designed to "make whole". If their isn't a loss/damages you'll have no case. I guess the charges would be for animal cruelty? Yet not knowing exactly what happened to the fish how would that work? Any thoughts?

 

[muss60]

None of the options on the poll fit my opinion of this situation; my family and I are hooked on salt water tanks and we love our fish (heck, they all have names)! But if this really happened, the person needs to have a good talking to about common sense; would she rent a puppy for a week and then "dispose" of it? I'm disheartened that this would happen in the first place; but I agree with the one post that says I watch movies for the entertainment value, not whether or not the actors are intelligent. Having said that, it's sad that this kind of thing happens.

For the record, my spouse would agree with charging the actor.

 

[Jan]

I am of the opinion that the star lied and gave the fish away. I think this because of the effort to collect fish out of a large tank with rock in it. This star seems lazy and self-centered, he/she knew that keeping the tank was not their choice and that the LFS would come and get the contents. In this scenario I think he/she would have let the LFS come get the fish too unless someone else wanted them.

Either this or the "disposing of" scenario is pretty sickening and if I knew who the star was it might turn me off of seeing their movies anymore....I may also want to put the heat on a bit by calling attention to their actions in a public way.

I didn't vote though because none of the options totally fit my opinion.

 

[Reefergeorge]

I'm against renting anything as sensitive as a marine fish.
In a episode of Tori and dean inn love they rented a tank that was about 120 gallons, The shop came and set it up in the morning with fake coral and threw in a 12" porc puffer with a few other fish just to have something to look at for there party.
I also think as stated above that the work involved to catch fish just to throw them away wold be to involved when you knew the store was coming back the next day.

 

[Damsel13]

I think it is more than stressful for the fish however I hope those beautiful fishes lives eiither were prolonged or snuffed out as quickly as possible. Lee I don't like this on Reef Frontier's.

 

[morgan]

1 if it was a fish catching game u should of added a lion fish and we all know who did it
2 if i was the lfs owner i think i would of given them an ear full no matter who they are
3 i would probly contact some one to tell them of this incedent tabloid or local news rspca or something
4 i dont know if that would make me boycott a movie i would have a lesser opioin of the star and probly discuss said inforation with anyone who bring up said star
5 what an *******

 

[logiktest]

Lee,

I think this poll is bordering on the water cooler forum due to ethics, politics, etc. but here are my 2 cents.

Think Tom Cruze or Mel Gibson. Both are good actors in thier own right, but once thier personal lives were reveled, did they lose thier skills? No, but box office numbers dropped big time. My opinion of the actors as humans did change, but my opinion of thier acting skill did not. Actors are people too, we just need to remember "I'm not a smart person, I just play one on T.V."

After the star replied "we threw them away" the LFS owner could have replied with a lot of choice four letter words. The LFS owner could also have inquired much further into the case of the missing fish to find out exactly what happened had he/she cared enough to know.

Killing fish is bad, just like puppies and kittens and dare I use the word abortion. I think the fish are alive and well in someones loving tank simply because I'm optimistic. Non of us were there to bear witness to any of this story, therfore the entertainment industry will remain a rumor mill.

 

[leebca]

I'm glad some have noticed the 'wrinkle' in the story. The wrinkle is the catching of the fishes. Most of us keep fish, or have kept marine fish. Catching a couple dozen fish in a 500 gallon aquarium with LR is one heck of a job.

If the fish had truly died in the tank from a water quality issue or error the LFS should have still found a stray (dead) fish. But. . .They were gone without a trace.

Those who would have liked the LFS to speak up should remember that the LFS doesn't do business by angering any customer, famous or otherwise. The LFS would not service this person again and perhaps ban him/her from their business, but confrontation is not a likely reasonable outcome for a retailer. Whether it matters or not, this LFS owner is an elderly oriental man who would not use any word that might be considered abusive.

I agree with every poster about the separation of personal and professional lives. The reason I am actually boycotting the famous person's films is not in protest. You see. . .every time I see that person's face (or hear their name), I think of those fish. For me, this prevents me from being entertained by this person.

I'd like to think of the fish as having been given away or moved, but the LFS is relatively sure they were killed. Since the star owned them, I would have thought the star would not have withheld the fact that the fish were given away, if they had been.

 

[DonW]

I think the store owner needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The folks that hang out on this and other forums are just a drop in the bucket in terms of people attempting to keep SW fish. Yes the "movie star" may have killed a group of fish but the realiy is that the majority of the fish a LFS sells will be killed. Nobody is complaining about the cute couple that walks in and maxes out their new credit card on the 55 gallon aquarium and inferior high profit equipment that the LFS recommends. This couple kills their first few fish and the next few until they get the hang of it until they figure out its too much work and to expensive. They flush the last few fish they have left, all before they ever pay off the credit card from the inital bad decision.
Sadly this is the overlooked majority and has moved from FO to reef keeping.

Don

 

[leebca]

That's food for thought, Don. Haven't we all, at some time or other not been responsible for fish loss? Is this scenario different?

Maybe when we have fish loss, we fail in an attempt to do things right. But isn't the purposeful destruction of the fish in a different category?

If you are reading this post, this is a chance to stop reading. You see, if you have been hoping the fish were given away or picked up by someone else, the following information may convince you otherwise. So, if you want to hang on to that belief, best to stop reading this post now.

x


x


x


x


I didn't post everything I asked the LFS. But the information provided should answer the question. No one seemed to ask the question so far. But here's the point/information.

I and the LFS had hoped the fish were removed or given away. But even the newest novice knows you don't pack fish in a dry bag. I asked what I thought was a logical question at the time. . .Was there any water missing, in addition to the fish?

The LFS said the water level was within about one gallon short of where it should have been. This level was just below, but almost right on, the sump mark placed by LFS. When the fish were properly imported into the aquarium, they were packed in about 25 gallons of water.

The water checked out, including the same salinity by refractometer. This seemed to confirm what the star said.

I for one would like to think the fish were moved, but I've not known fish to be transfered safely and alive without the use of water and, there being dozens of fish, there should have been many gallons of water missing. There wasn't enough water missing to imply the fish were bagged.

So, no rock missing; not much water missing; fish missing.

 

[Herefishyfishy]

Lee, so what is your point? Seems more of a statement than a survey. If you have a gripe about some particular moron, why not just make it?

I eat fish. Omnivorous. Others are vegetarians due to religious reasons. I have also been a fisherman much of my life, fish killer.

Fish die. Many due to stupidity of the keeper. Sometimes due to not wanting to learn, not wanting to do the work, not caring, or as Don pointed out, simply changing one's mind as a keeper.

Many more fish are lost through poor collection methods such as cyanide, dynamite, losses due to byproduct catch.

This does not appear to be any criminal offense. No ASPCA laws appears to apply even if "fish cruelty" occured. So it is simply a matter of if some unnamed personality and/or friends performed some stupid acts for whatever purpose to the detriment of the fish. For all we know, it is another urban legend.

Back to my question, what is the point?

 

[DonW]

That's food for thought, Don. Haven't we all, at some time or other not been responsible for fish loss? Is this scenario different?

You miss my point, I dont blame the couple in my example, I blame the LFS. Is this different. No way, the lfs's knows darn good and well that the fish are going to die and thats what helps support their business. Its exactly the same thing they might as well flush the fish themselves, but there would be no profit in that. Shifting the blame to the customers doesnt make it any different it just denial.

The worst thing that happend to this hobby over the past few years is it becomming affordable. Affordable in our society is disposable. Instead of boycotting the movies of a "movie star" why not boycott the real problem.

Don

 

[leebca]

I didn't have a point in mind, Mike. I had questions.

Does this action affect how marine hobbyists/aquarist view the work of the actor?
How pro-active would a marine hobbyist/aquarist be when faced with this knowledge?
Some additional considerations:
It may be a shame that some people would purposely kill what some consider to be pets, but is it wrong? It's their pet some would say. Do we have any reason to interfere?
Maybe you catch the fish, kill it and throw it back into the water. Or maybe you catch the fish to eat it. Is there any difference? Where's the line? if one exists.

I don't gripe.

The time before last I tried to stop someone from killing an animal I got beaten up a bit.

 

[Reeferdude]

What about the 'last' time?