# Fish pedicure........................



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

who has tried it???????
i am going today


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Wait a minute! I knew fish had fingers but I never knew they had toes as well?

*Ah well, You live and learn!*


----------



## shells (Jan 16, 2011)

aparently it ticcles lol iv never tried it myself


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

No never have never will.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> who has tried it???????
> i am going today


*I've not tried it but look forward to seeing what its like when you get back.*


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

shells said:


> aparently it ticcles lol iv never tried it myself


yes, i have been told it tickles as well, oh well , we shall see


danielled said:


> No never have never will.


why not dan?



JANICE199 said:


> *I've not tried it but look forward to seeing what its like when you get back.*


i will let you know apparently they are quite big fish


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> yes, i have been told it tickles as well, oh well , we shall see
> 
> why not dan?
> 
> i will let you know apparently they are quite big fish


I don't agree with it. The poor fish is what I say.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*This video is so funny..take a peep.
YouTube - ‪Fish Pedicure on The Ray D&#39;Arcy Show‬‏*


----------



## Sandysmum (Sep 18, 2010)

I don't like the sound of it, it just seems - wrong!


----------



## ukmutz (Mar 23, 2008)

Yes I've done it, it was about a year ago on holiday and I tell you there was a lot more fish in the tank there than you see in the ones here. 

I found it unbelievably tickley, they don't (shouldn't have) teeth so they sort of suck on your dead skin. Feet came out nice and smooth afterwards though


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

ive not had it done, but am thinking about it . from what ive seen they are not that big of a fish either


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ukmutz said:


> Yes I've done it, it was about a year ago on holiday and I tell you there was a lot more fish in the tank there than you see in the ones here.
> 
> I found it unbelievably tickley, they don't (shouldn't have) teeth so they sort of suck on your dead skin. Feet came out nice and smooth afterwards though


*When my son went to Crete the fish in the sea did the same thing.*


----------



## ukmutz (Mar 23, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *When my son went to Crete the fish in the sea did the same thing.*


But did they have teeth


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *This video is so funny..take a peep.
> YouTube - ‪Fish Pedicure on The Ray D'Arcy Show‬‏*


they look quite small so i should be ok


ukmutz said:


> Yes I've done it, it was about a year ago on holiday and I tell you there was a lot more fish in the tank there than you see in the ones here.
> 
> I found it unbelievably tickley, they don't (shouldn't have) teeth so they sort of suck on your dead skin. Feet came out nice and smooth afterwards though


thats what i have been told, well, we will see


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ukmutz said:


> But did they have teeth


*lol I didn't ask him.He just said it tickled.lol*


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *When my son went to Crete the fish in the sea did the same thing.*


they done it in cyprus too but they did have teeth


----------



## Jackie99 (Mar 5, 2010)

My mother has very bad feet and would like to try this after trying a lot of other stuff. I wonder how the fish feel about it really though!


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Jackie99 said:


> My mother has very bad feet and would like to try this after trying a lot of other stuff. I wonder how the fish feel about it really though!


apparently, they go for the one with the worse hard skin on their feet should leave me alone then


----------



## JJAK (May 28, 2010)

iv not been but im dying to go...theres one not too far from us and i keep trying to persuade OH but hes having none of it!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> apparently, they go for the one with the worse hard skin on their feet should leave me alone then


*lol They will have the meal of their lives with my feet.
The neasrest i've found to me so far is about 22 miles away and you don't need to book.I might try it before my holiday.But i'll wait and see how you get on first.lol*


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol They will have the meal of their lives with my feet.
> The neasrest i've found to me so far is about 22 miles away and you don't need to book.I might try it before my holiday.But i'll wait and see how you get on first.lol*


thanks janice
its in ashford town centre and no booking required


----------



## Jackie99 (Mar 5, 2010)

I am defo going to have to book an appointment for my Mother now as a treat, the ones I have looked at are very reasonable in price to for either 15 minutes or 30, much cheaper than I thought. Don't think I'd like it, far to ticklish on the feet and everywhere else!


----------



## Lady Sol (Aug 20, 2009)

I think I'll stick to the shrimp at the Sealife centres cleaning my finger nails


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

There is risk of infection if you have it. I want to know who's idea it was to do fish pedicures.


----------



## vicmac (May 19, 2011)

I would not have it done. I read that there are welfare issues at a few establishments in particular and that most don't feed the fish so they eat the dead skin instead.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

danielled said:


> There is risk of infection if you have it. I want to know who's idea it was to do fish pedicures.


*I suppose as the fish do it naturaly someone thought it would be a good idea to use it as a beauty treatment.*


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I suppose as the fish do it naturaly someone thought it would be a good idea to use it as a beauty treatment.*


The poor fish are starved for this.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

danielled said:


> The poor fish are starved for this.


*Are they? And if they are eating skin then isn't that them getting fed?Also why would they do it in the sea as well? I don't know about fish.*


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Are they? And if they are eating skin then isn't that them getting fed?Also why would they do it in the sea as well? I don't know about fish.*


me neither


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Are they? And if they are eating skin then isn't that them getting fed?Also why would they do it in the sea as well? I don't know about fish.*





archiebaby said:


> me neither


The fish don't even get the nutrients they need. To all fish in fish pedicures I'm sorry that you poor lil fellas don't get the nutrients you need but people won't stop opening these fish pedicure places. They probably eat other stuff in the wild as well with the nutrients they need in.


----------



## davidc (Dec 15, 2010)

danielled said:


> The poor fish are starved for this.


I've read that. They've been banned in some states in the USA due to the health risks they pose.



JANICE199 said:


> *Are they? And if they are eating skin then isn't that them getting fed?Also why would they do it in the sea as well? I don't know about fish.*


They probably wouldn't get the nutrients they need from the skin of humans feet.
Maybe in the sea the larger fish take their food sources, I don't know, but it would be easy for them to do. I imagine smaller fish find it harder to come by food sources than the larger ones who can just iny=timidate or even eat their smaller rivals. Maybe Chillinator could shed some light on this?



archiebaby said:


> me neither


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

danielled said:


> The fish don't even get the nutrients they need. To all fish in fish pedicures I'm sorry that you poor lil fellas don't get the nutrients you need but people won't stop opening these fish pedicure places. They probably eat other stuff in the wild as well with the nutrients they need in.


*Garra Rufa questions answered
Reading this it says the fish do require suppimentary feeding but rely mainly on the food whilst performing what they do.*


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Garra Rufa questions answered
> Reading this it says the fish do require suppimentary feeding but rely mainly on the food whilst performing what they do.*


Most articles say the fish are starving.


----------



## davidc (Dec 15, 2010)

Discovery Health "How Doctor Fish Work"

Apprently it is unsanity and banned in some places, see link.


----------



## davidc (Dec 15, 2010)

Flesh eating fish pedicures may be banned in New York bill as Inhumane: (old article though):

Flesh-Eating Fish Pedicures May Be Banned Under New York Bill as Inhumane - Bloomberg


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Although its is banned in some states in America,i personaly can't see a good arguement against it.*


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Although its is banned in some states in America,i personaly can't see a good arguement against it.*


As you can see I am against it and would like to see it banned here too. These poor fish.


----------



## nikki2009 (Feb 5, 2011)

we have got a place that has just opened that does this and im tempted to go and have ago and see what it is like


----------



## vicmac (May 19, 2011)

_Emma Turner of Maidenhead Aquatics at Peterborough told Practical Fishkeeping: "We have had several enquiries from beauty spas based both in the UK and USA, and have declined the sale of these fish on ethical grounds every time"

"It is one thing for genuine psoriasis sufferers to visit these fish in their natural habitat, but it is completely unacceptable for them to be used as a beauty treatment in the confines of a spa. We feel there is no way that a beauty spa could provide a stable, stress-free environment."

Turner said that spas would be unlikely to ensure that the fish received a healthy balanced diet, as the fish would not show much interest in skin if well fed.

She said that there were also welfare issues relating to catching and moving the fish, and in maintaining the correct water conditions and temperatures in the treatment vessels.

Turner also said that the fish could be exposed to potentially harmful chemicals used in skin creams previously applied to the feet, and that it would be difficult to control intraspecific aggression by the fish.

"Although there may be the odd exception, in general, the vast majority of beauty spa workers will not have the time and knowledge to care for these fish properly. It is very concerning that Garra rufa are just being viewed as another tool in man's pursuit of beauty at any cost," she added. _

This was taken from practical fish keeping magazine website.


----------



## davidc (Dec 15, 2010)

nikki2009 said:


> we have got a place that has just opened that does this and im tempted to go and have ago and see what it is like


There's one that opened up a while ago near me, won't be using it though.
I remembered a thread I read on here a while back about them, makes interesting reading: http://www.petforums.co.uk/fish-keeping-chat/133514-garra-rufa-fish.html


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

nikki2009 said:


> we have got a place that has just opened that does this and im tempted to go and have ago and see what it is like


I know what I'm tempted to do.


----------



## nikki2009 (Feb 5, 2011)

i think alot of people have got alot of views on this i saw it on a programme ages ago 
and thought it was weird but its what some people like aint it and if it makes money people are going to do it wether it is cruel or not


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

nikki2009 said:


> i think alot of people have got alot of views on this i saw it on a programme ages ago
> and thought it was weird but its what some people like aint it and if it makes money people are going to do it wether it is cruel or not


If anybody that tries it gets an infection doubt they will try it again.


----------



## nikki2009 (Feb 5, 2011)

danielled said:


> If anybody that tries it gets an infection doubt they will try it again.


i aint actualy read up on it properly 
i doubt i would actualy go tbh its prob to exspensive anyway


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

nikki2009 said:


> i aint actualy read up on it properly
> i doubt i would actualy go tbh its prob to exspensive anyway


I'm steering clear. My fish are fed better than that.


----------



## davidc (Dec 15, 2010)

nikki2009 said:


> i think alot of people have got alot of views on this i saw it on a programme ages ago
> and thought it was weird but its what some people like aint it and if it makes money people are going to do it wether it is cruel or not


Yeah that's true, the reason puppy farms for example still exist is because they make a lot of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of things.



danielled said:


> If anybody that tries it gets an infection doubt they will try it again.


Infection warning over fish pedicure craze sweeping Britain | Mail Online


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

davidc said:


> Yeah that's true, the reason puppy farms for example still exist is because they make a lot of money. Money is the motivation behind a lot of things.
> 
> Infection warning over fish pedicure craze sweeping Britain | Mail Online


That link is going in my book marks too along with the others.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

My oh has kinds had it done lol We used to sit on the end of the jetty and feed the fish when we were in the maldives and oh had a genius idea of putting food between his toes lol well he got attacked by fish of all kinds and soon got his feet out when he saw one that was over a foot long heading his way


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm with Dani on this  Poor fish.

Not only are there a few serious health concerns for us humans doing it, but I've heard that in some places the fish only live for a day or two and are then replaced with new stock.

There was a thread about this in the fish section a while ago, and from what I understand it would be almost impossible to give the fish a good environment to live in to keep them and the general public sufficiently healthy. Unless of course folk see it as acceptable that fish should be used like this until they die having lived a very short life ... then just replaced like none living stock?

There is a massive difference between fish in the ocean doing this and the poor fish kept in confinement in a shop doing this.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

Aurelia said:


> I'm with Dani on this  Poor fish.
> 
> Not only are there a few serious health concerns for us humans doing it, but I've heard that in some places the fish only live for a day or two and are then replaced with new stock.
> 
> ...


Thank you now if those little fellas were in my tnak they would get proper nutrients the ones they need and would love longer than a day. Wish I could do somethingto save these fish from doing fish pedicures every day.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> I'm with Dani on this  Poor fish.
> 
> Not only are there a few serious health concerns for us humans doing it, but I've heard that in some places the fish only live for a day or two and are then replaced with new stock.
> 
> ...


*In that case surely its cruel to keep fish in a tank or pond.Whats the difference,they are both out of their natural habbitat.*


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *In that case surely its cruel to keep fish in a tank or pond.Whats the difference,they are both out of their natural habbitat.*


My fish in my tank and pond get fed though I discovered I only have a few left in the pond. At least my tank has real plants and rocks in.


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *In that case surely its cruel to keep fish in a tank or pond.Whats the difference,they are both out of their natural habbitat.*


Fish kept in a tank/aquarium in a home set up don't have to deal with the general publics manky infected feet being dipped in though! Nor are they purchased for the soul purpose of making money regardless of whether they live for very long.

This is one of the threads I've read on PF before about it http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/133535-would-you-use-fish-spa.html


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

Aurelia said:


> Fish kept in a tank/aquarium in a home set up don't have to deal with the general publics manky infected feet being dipped in though! Nor are they purchased for the soul purpose of making money regardless of whether they live for very long.
> 
> This is one of the threads I've read on PF before about it http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/133535-would-you-use-fish-spa.html


Thank you again. Might I just point out that fish in my pond are semi wild anyway.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

danielled said:


> Thank you again. Might I just point out that fish in my pond are semi wild anyway.


semi wild :skep:


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

harley bear said:


> semi wild:skep:


They are fed by me yes but I limit the contact I have though I still look after them. It was my uncle that told me nice uncle by the way that pond fish are semi wild. Confused me at first too. In winter they don't get fed as they won't eat the food and it will contaminate the water making it yucky so they eat stuff in the pond through winter I feed them once a day now it is warmer. Mum thinks they eat insects but not sure they are eating something through the winter though as they weren't that big started feeding them before heron took them and was amazed how big they were. Some had babies too.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

danielled said:


> They are fed by me yes but I limit the contact I have though I still look after them. It was my uncle that told me nice uncle by the way that pond fish are semi wild. Confused me at first too. In winter they don't get fed as they won't eat the food and it will contaminate the water making it yucky so they eat stuff in the pond through winter I feed them once a day now it is warmer. Mum thinks they eat insects but not sure they are eating something through the winter though as they weren't that big started feeding them before heron took them and was amazed how big they were. Some had babies too.


I didnt think it would matter who fed then tank or pond fish.... i mean its not like they are gonna remember is it?


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

good idea and a good treatment 

and makes a few a quid aswell


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

bigdaddy said:


> good idea and a good treatment
> 
> and makes a few a quid aswell


I'm not going to try it ever. A big no no for me.:nono:


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

danielled said:


> I'm not going to try it ever. A big no no for me.:nono:


thats what makes the world go round we are all diffrent


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I didnt think it would matter who fed then tank or pond fish.... i mean its not like they are gonna remember is it?


Who said fish don't have memories my pond fish haven't forgotten the heron the few I have are still hideing how many weeks later so yes they do remember things. They hid after the event and are still hiding now.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

bigdaddy said:


> thats what makes the world go round we are all diffrent


True lol. The poor fish being used for this need proper nutrients from proper fish food.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

danielled said:


> Who said fish don't have memories my pond fish haven't forgotten the heron the few I have are still hideing how many weeks later so yes they do remember things. They hid after the event and are still hiding now.


Wasnt it proven not long pack they have a 5 second memory or something?


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

danielled said:


> True lol. The poor fish being used for this need proper nutrients from proper fish food.


they aint the normal pond fish tho that is waht they can eat and live on

yeah if they were using koi then would have to agree its not the best diet for them

its not harmful to the fish

they wouldnt be open and offering the treatments if it was that bad would they


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

danielled said:


> True lol. The poor fish being used for this need proper nutrients from proper fish food.


So is it wrong to use maggots to kill infections in wounds and so on?


----------



## davidc (Dec 15, 2010)

harley bear said:


> Wasnt it proven not long pack they have a 5 second memory or something?


A student did a study to disprove the myth. They taught their goldfish tricks, think they found the fish had at least a 6 day memory.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

harley bear said:


> So is it wrong to use maggots to kill infections in wounds and so on?


I never said it was wrong to do that never had it done either. Notsure on this one.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

bigdaddy said:


> they aint the normal pond fish tho that is waht they can eat and live on
> 
> yeah if they were using koi then would have to agree its not the best diet for them
> 
> ...


I know what you are saying but imo they can't just live off eating peoples skin like this as said in an earlier post some of the fish only live a day.


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

thats what the fish are bred to do


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

danielled said:


> I never said it was wrong to do that never had it done either. Notsure on this one.


To be fair most animals have developed an instinct over many hundreds of thousands of years what is safe for them to eat etc.. they choose to suck the manky feet and are attracted to it.
Maybe they keep forgetting its bad for them?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

davidc said:


> A student did a study to disprove the myth. They taught their goldfish tricks, think they found the fish had at least a 6 day memory.


 really?


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

harley bear said:


> To be fair most animals have developed an instinct over many hundreds of thousands of years what is safe for them to eat etc.. they choose to suck the manky feet and are attracted to it.


The fish can be carriers of TB. I still say poor fish.


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

davidc said:


> A student did a study to disprove the myth. They taught their goldfish tricks, think they found the fish had at least a 6 day memory.


not all fish are the same


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *In that case surely its cruel to keep fish in a tank or pond.Whats the difference,they are both out of their natural habbitat.*


Fish in a proper fish tank or pond set up are kept much more ethically than fish in one of those gross foot dipping things. Pet fish are (usually) given a correct diet of fish food that meets their nutritional needs. Many people also feed a variety of vegitation & water plants and also even live foods like bloodworm as well as being kept in non crowded conditions in clean, filtered tanks that are foot free!! Of course there are pet fish that aren't kept properly and aren't fed proper diets and of course that's wrong but you could also say that for cats and dogs and any other pet - there's always going to be someone who keeps any animal in improper conditions but you can't say it's cruel to keep all animals of that species as pets just because of a few who don't keep them properly - which is what the 'pedicure' shops are.

The fish pedicure treatments are absolutely disgusting, they can spread infections between open wounds, and of course the welfare of the fish would be an issue to me.

Most people wouldn't share bath water even with relatives, why would you stick your feet in the same water as hundreds of random strangers who could have anything?.Yuck!


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

Verbatim said:


> Fish in a proper fish tank or pond set up are kept much more ethically than fish in one of those gross foot dipping things. Pet fish are (usually) given a correct diet of fish food that meets their nutritional needs. Many people also feed a variety of vegitation & water plants and also even live foods like bloodworm as well as being kept in non crowded conditions in clean, filtered tanks that are foot free!! Of course there are pet fish that aren't kept properly and aren't fed proper diets and of course that's wrong but you could also say that for cats and dogs and any other pet - there's always going to be someone who keeps any animal in improper conditions but you can't say it's cruel to keep all animals of that species as pets just because of a few who don't keep them properly - which is what the 'pedicure' shops are.
> 
> The fish pedicure treatments are absolutely disgusting, they can spread infections between open wounds, and of course the welfare of the fish would be an issue to me.
> 
> Most people wouldn't share bath water even with relatives, why would you stick your feet in the same water as hundreds of random strangers who could have anything?.Yuck!


:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

Verbatim said:


> Fish in a proper fish tank or pond set up are kept much more ethically than fish in one of those gross foot dipping things. Pet fish are (usually) given a correct diet of fish food that meets their nutritional needs. Many people also feed a variety of vegitation & water plants and also even live foods like bloodworm as well as being kept in non crowded conditions in clean, filtered tanks that are foot free!! Of course there are pet fish that aren't kept properly and aren't fed proper diets and of course that's wrong but you could also say that for cats and dogs and any other pet - there's always going to be someone who keeps any animal in improper conditions but you can't say it's cruel to keep all animals of that species as pets just because of a few who don't keep them properly - which is what the 'pedicure' shops are.
> 
> The fish pedicure treatments are absolutely disgusting, they can spread infections between open wounds, and of course the welfare of the fish would be an issue to me.
> 
> Most people wouldn't share bath water even with relatives, why would you stick your feet in the same water as hundreds of random strangers who could have anything?.Yuck!


Totally agree with you about the welfare of the poor fish. Well said about the infection between open wounds.

Ok think I shall step away from this thread now.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

bigdaddy said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol:


find something funny


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

Verbatim said:


> find something funny


yeah the post you just did cheers for that cheerd me up on this boring afternoon


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

bigdaddy said:


> yeah the post you just did cheers for that cheerd me up on this boring afternoon


So, because you don't agree with what I said, it's funny?

You're very mature aren't you pal :thumbup:


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

I read an article directed towards people who wanted to keep Garra Rufa for that purpose. It talked about a "controlled diet". i.e. starving them. It's a shame


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Verbatim said:


> Fish in a proper fish tank or pond set up are kept much more ethically than fish in one of those gross foot dipping things. Pet fish are (usually) given a correct diet of fish food that meets their nutritional needs. Many people also feed a variety of vegitation & water plants and also even live foods like bloodworm as well as being kept in non crowded conditions in clean, filtered tanks that are foot free!! Of course there are pet fish that aren't kept properly and aren't fed proper diets and of course that's wrong but you could also say that for cats and dogs and any other pet - there's always going to be someone who keeps any animal in improper conditions but you can't say it's cruel to keep all animals of that species as pets just because of a few who don't keep them properly - which is what the 'pedicure' shops are.
> 
> The fish pedicure treatments are absolutely disgusting, they can spread infections between open wounds, and of course the welfare of the fish would be an issue to me.
> 
> Most people wouldn't share bath water even with relatives, why would you stick your feet in the same water as hundreds of random strangers who could have anything?.Yuck!


*LMFAO and swimming in the sea or swimming pool are different?As for not sharing a bath,you haven't lived.:lol::lol::lol:*


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

Verbatim said:


> So, because you don't agree with what I said, it's funny?
> 
> You're very mature aren't you pal :thumbup:


yep i am as it gose 

sorry but i didnt write anything just the lol smiley thats all

your post made me laugh the welfare of the fish

they are bred to do that and it dont harm them otherwise they wouldnt eat it would they ut:

at the end of the day it aint got anything to do with any of us unless we own the shop etc etc

dont see why people spit the dummy out over it

thats why it made me laugh so thats what i posted :lol::lol:


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *LMFAO and swimming in the sea or swimming pool are different?As for not sharing a bath,you haven't lived.:lol::lol::lol:*


Totally agree! Imagine how many dead bodies there are in the ocean


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

harley bear said:


> Totally agree! Imagine how many dead bodies there are in the ocean


*Not sure why the sarcasm,there must be thousands of dead bodies in the oceans.*


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *LMFAO and swimming in the sea or swimming pool are different?As for not sharing a bath,you haven't lived.:lol::lol::lol:*


Actually yes, yes it is!

1) Swimming pools do not contain fish. The water is also treated to keep it as clean as possible.

2) Swimming in the sea ... hmm do I honestly need to say why that's different? :lol:


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Not sure why the sarcasm,there must be thousands of dead bodies in the oceans.*


Sarcasm? What?! Of course there are thousands of dead bodies in the ocean!


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *LMFAO and swimming in the sea or swimming pool are different?As for not sharing a bath,you haven't lived.:lol::lol::lol:*


No it isn't different, that's why I don't do either of those things  I saw more than enough floating turds, plasters, hairs and suspicious yellowy green areas of water during my school swimming lessons to put me off public swimming baths for life 



bigdaddy said:


> yep i am as it gose
> 
> sorry but i didnt write anything just the lol smiley thats all
> 
> ...


Why would it not have anything to do with us? Surely we can still have opinions on things........ and not be laughed at for it! As you said yourself:



bigdaddy said:


> thats what makes the world go round we are all diffrent


if you lot wanna go swimming in everyone elses p!ss and sh!t or stick your feet in the same tub of water as some diseased scrote then that's fine by me. And if you want to laugh at my opinions, then that's fine too but just be aware that you make yourself look a right unfair twonk


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

bigdaddy said:


> yep i am as it gose
> 
> sorry but i didnt write anything just the lol smiley thats all
> 
> ...


Ummm, perhaps because it involves an animal suffering for the sake of us humans cashing in on a new fad?

I don't think anyone said that the fish suffered for eating peoples manky skin, but the conditions they are kept in does mean they suffer more often than not.

Plus I personally can't get the image out of my head of a little fishy going and sucking on someones dead and infected skin ... then moments later coming to my feet and sucking on my skin with those very lips (lol) ... with the infected manky skin on the other persons feet still in their stomachs.  ewwwwwww.


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

oh my god you lot must be bloody thick if the fish did not want to eat it wouldnt it dose not do them any harm they are bred for this thats why there are shops offering this 

yes we can all have a view but why take it so far ?

its a service that people want and they will pay for so it will happen

this forum is always good for a laugh just to see how many jump up and down over some thing so stupid:lol:

they are fish 

get a grip


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

also they use diffrent fish per treatment


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

Verbatim said:


> No it isn't different, that's why I don't do either of those things  I saw more than enough floating turds, plasters, hairs and suspicious yellowy green areas of water during my school swimming lessons to put me off public swimming baths for life
> 
> Why would it not have anything to do with us? Surely we can still have opinions on things........ and not be laughed at for it! As you said yourself:
> 
> if you lot wanna go swimming in everyone elses p!ss and sh!t or stick your feet in the same tub of water as some diseased scrote then that's fine by me. And if you want to laugh at my opinions, then that's fine too but just be aware that you make yourself look a right unfair twonk


maybe you should re read the post and quote the right person

i never said anything about the sea


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

bigdaddy said:


> maybe you should re read the post and quote the right person
> 
> i never said anything about the sea


Maybe you should re-read my post, I wasn't just quoting you


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

ok..... well i am back and looks like you have all been busy with your opinions, which is absolutely fine with me
firstly the place was spotless, you must wash your feet properly in a shower area and dry them and put on different shoes before going to the tanks completely different tanks of fish for each person to put their feet in the water is continually filtered the fish seemed very happy with my feet and the lady said they are fed a protein every evening as a supplement i will definately be going again but that is of course my own option and i really enjoyed it tbh. if felt like tickling and little electric shocks all together and my feet were lovely and smooth afterwards and i didnt see no dead fish
oh, it is £10 for 15 mins


----------



## ukmutz (Mar 23, 2008)

Glad you enjoyed it


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> ok..... well i am back and looks like you have all been busy with your opinions, which is absolutely fine with me
> firstly the place was spotless, you must wash your feet properly in a shower area and dry them and put on different shoes before going to the tanks completely different tanks of fish for each person to put their feet in the water is continually filtered the fish seemed very happy with my feet and the lady said they are fed a protein every evening as a supplement i will definately be going again but that is of course my own option and i really enjoyed it tbh. if felt like tickling and little electric shocks all together and my feet were lovely and smooth afterwards and i didnt see no dead fish
> oh, it is £10 for 15 mins


thank god some one who talks some sense

glad you enjoyed it


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> ok..... well i am back and looks like you have all been busy with your opinions, which is absolutely fine with me
> firstly the place was spotless, you must wash your feet properly in a shower area and dry them and put on different shoes before going to the tanks completely different tanks of fish for each person to put their feet in the water is continually filtered the fish seemed very happy with my feet and the lady said they are fed a protein every evening as a supplement i will definately be going again but that is of course my own option and i really enjoyed it tbh. if felt like tickling and little electric shocks all together and my feet were lovely and smooth afterwards and i didnt see no dead fish
> oh, it is £10 for 15 mins


Next time you go they might remember your feet


----------



## ukmutz (Mar 23, 2008)

harley bear said:


> Next time you go they might remember your feet


lol, only if you go back in 6 days wasn't it??


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

harley bear said:


> Next time you go they might remember your feet


i am actually going to take little archie along with me next time 
they do actually check that you have no cuts,veruccas etc on your feet before you go to the tanks


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

ukmutz said:


> lol, only if you go back in 6 days wasn't it??


:d:d:d..........................


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

ukmutz said:


> lol, only if you go back in 6 days wasn't it??


Well you never know ... next they will be finding fish cleaver enough to get into MENSA :biggrin5:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> ok..... well i am back and looks like you have all been busy with your opinions, which is absolutely fine with me
> firstly the place was spotless, you must wash your feet properly in a shower area and dry them and put on different shoes before going to the tanks completely different tanks of fish for each person to put their feet in the water is continually filtered the fish seemed very happy with my feet and the lady said they are fed a protein every evening as a supplement i will definately be going again but that is of course my own option and i really enjoyed it tbh. if felt like tickling and little electric shocks all together and my feet were lovely and smooth afterwards and i didnt see no dead fish
> oh, it is £10 for 15 mins


* So glad you enjoyed it and if i can get to Strood i will be having a go.Don't know when it will be though.Did you have to book to have your done?The place in Strood you can just walk in.I'd probably need 30 mins for my feet.*


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> * So glad you enjoyed it and if i can get to Strood i will be having a go.Don't know when it will be though.Did you have to book to have your done?The place in Strood you can just walk in.I'd probably need 30 mins for my feet.*


it was the most weird feeling at first janice but then very relaxing i will definately be going again and no, you dont have to book just go in


----------



## petzplazaUK (Feb 21, 2011)

eww its the thought of something touching my feet lol and i dont like my feet touched anyway
last year we completely emptied the fish pond and were putting all the fish into buckets and in i waded trousers up to the knees to empty the rest of the water out and catch remaining fish, i thought a fish sucked the bottom of my foot and it was horrible,i then looked down to see it was a frog/toad it me jump yards , eww never again it felt too gross lol

whilst i love watching fish and frogs and toads, the thought alone of them sucking on my feet is definately out of the question lol

glad u enjoyed it though its personal choice at the end of the day:biggrin5:


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

I don't know much about these places but IMO that if we take charge of any living thing, we do so with a duty of care to provide a environment that has the animals wellbeing at heart, first and foremost.

For fish keeping I believe that takes the form of biotope set ups in so much as possible, something that represents their natural or preferred environment. Matching substrates, flow rate, dissolved o2, pH, plants and vegetation, natural decor etc.... 

I just can't reconcile keeping them in highly stocked, bare glass tanks with ethical husbandry.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

jenniferx said:


> I don't know much about these places but IMO that if we take charge of any living thing, we do so with a duty of care to provide a environment that has the animals wellbeing at heart, first and foremost.
> 
> For fish keeping I believe that takes the form of biotope set ups in so much as possible, something that represents their natural or preferred environment. Matching substrates, flow rate, dissolved o2, pH, plants and vegetation, natural decor etc....
> 
> I just can't reconcile keeping them in highly stocked, bare glass tanks with ethical husbandry.


Be careful, you'll be laughed at and have the p!ss taken if you try to give a differing opinion to anyone else


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> it was the most weird feeling at first janice but then very relaxing i will definately be going again and no, you dont have to book just go in


*What i would like to know is,how the hell do you get up onto those seats without falling a*se over t*t? This is the one in Strood and they look high up to me.
Aqua Sanctuary || Photos*


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

Different folks and different strokes. Some don't have a problem with using an animal to make them feel better, even if it means that animal will suffer. They are only fish after all!


Never thought I'd hear such a thing on a Pet Forum!


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *What i would like to know is,how the hell do you get up onto those seats without falling a*se over t*t? This is the one in Strood and they look high up to me.
> Aqua Sanctuary || Photos*


no. they aint high up janice, promise no excuses, you have to go now, you said you would let me try it first


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

I have 2 questions. Who thought up this crazy idea? and WHY?:skep:::tongue:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> Different folks and different strokes. Some don't have a problem with using an animal to make them feel better, even if it means that animal will suffer. They are only fish after all!
> 
> Never thought I'd hear such a thing on a Pet Forum!


*I bet more than half on here don't mind eating fish though.*


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> Different folks and different strokes. Some don't have a problem with using an animal to make them feel better, even if it means that animal will suffer. They are only fish after all!
> 
> Never thought I'd hear such a thing on a Pet Forum!


how do you know the fish are actually suffering???


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> no. they aint high up janice, promise no excuses, you have to go now, you said you would let me try it first


*Well the worst that can happen is i'd get an all over pedicure.:lol::lol::thumbup:*


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

I just looked at the tanks on the link Janice provided. Those tanks are far too small to keep that many fish in period! Then you add to the mix peoples manky feet. OK so the fish don't suffer from eating off the feet, but they might suffer from all the dead stuff that falls off and down to the bottom of the tank to fester.

I'm no expert on this but I know a very nice young man who is  Hopefully he will be along shortly with some facts


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> I just looked at the tanks on the link Janice provided. Those tanks are far too small to keep that many fish in period! Then you add to the mix peoples manky feet. OK so the fish don't suffer from eating off the feet, but they might suffer from all the dead stuff that falls off and down to the bottom of the tank to fester.
> 
> I'm no expert on this but I know a very nice young man who is  Hopefully he will be along shortly with some facts


you have to wash your feet thoroughly before you put them in the tank so there is no manky feet to begin with 
i just think we have different opinions which we are all entitled to, i love animals and would never hurt one but in my honest opinion i think keeping cats indoors is cruel but that is just my opinion and i know lots disagree with me


----------



## BeagleOesx (Oct 9, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> ok..... well i am back and looks like you have all been busy with your opinions, which is absolutely fine with me
> firstly the place was spotless, you must wash your feet properly in a shower area and dry them and put on different shoes before going to the tanks completely different tanks of fish for each person to put their feet in the water is continually filtered the fish seemed very happy with my feet and the lady said they are fed a protein every evening as a supplement i will definately be going again but that is of course my own option and i really enjoyed it tbh. if felt like tickling and little electric shocks all together and my feet were lovely and smooth afterwards and i didnt see no dead fish
> oh, it is £10 for 15 mins


Sounds like you enjoyed it. Well all can say is..................... rather you than me! I am such a wuss when it comes to fish , there is NO way you would get me putting my feet voluntarily into a tank with fish for them to chomp on my feet! You should see me when we go away, I go paddling in the sea but if I see any of those little fishy things swimming near me :yikes: I am straight out of there - breaking all speed records :lol:


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Would be interesting to know what the disease/mortality rates are.

Can't say id do it, or even like it, but we do far worse things to animals in this country.


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

BeagleOesx said:


> Sounds like you enjoyed it. Well all can say is..................... rather you than me! I am such a wuss when it comes to fish , there is NO way you would get me putting my feet voluntarily into a tank with fish for them to chomp on my feet! You should see me when we go away, I go paddling in the sea but if I see any of those little fishy things swimming near me :yikes: I am straight out of there - breaking all speed records :lol:


that did make me laugh, must be your idea of hell then


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Would be interesting to know what the disease/mortality rates are.
> 
> Can't say id do it, or even like it, but we do far worse things to animals in this country.


thank you nonnie, i am not going to be made to feel guilty for cruelty to fish i have seen a lot worse things happen to animals


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> ok..... well i am back and looks like you have all been busy with your opinions, which is absolutely fine with me
> firstly the place was spotless, you must wash your feet properly in a shower area and dry them and put on different shoes before going to the tanks completely different tanks of fish for each person to put their feet in the water is continually filtered the fish seemed very happy with my feet and the lady said they are fed a protein every evening as a supplement i will definately be going again but that is of course my own option and i really enjoyed it tbh. if felt like tickling and little electric shocks all together and my feet were lovely and smooth afterwards and i didnt see no dead fish
> oh, it is £10 for 15 mins


I was waiting till you came back before i posted my comment, because i havnt been myself, we have one near us at meadowhall "APPY FEET" i was watching one day when soneone came out and i asked her about it and she said roughly the same as you, they were shown the nutrient drops that the fish was given they were only in for one session and then moved out and new fish put back in, she said the fish looked very healthy and active and her feet felt great too.


----------



## BeagleOesx (Oct 9, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> that did make me laugh, must be your idea of hell then


You are not joking, there is no way on this earth I could do it, it would be my worst nightmare lol. In fact, from a very young age I was taught to water ski by my dad and right from the word go I managed to stay on top of the water and didn't fall off many times - the reason being I can't stand being in the water waiting for the boat to pull me out because a big fish might come & nibble me :lol: I am now 47 years old and still the same


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> I was waiting till you came back before i posted my comment, because i havnt been myself, we have one near us at meadowhall "APPY FEET" i was watching one day when soneone came out and i asked her about it and she said roughly the same as you, they were shown the nutrient drops that the fish was given they were only in for one session and then moved out and new fish put back in, she said the fish looked very healthy and active and her feet felt great too.


thats the same place as in ashford ' appy feet '  that was exactly the same as my experiance!!!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> thank you nonnie, i am not going to be made to feel guilty for cruelty to fish i have seen a lot worse things happen to animals


*I don't see why you should be made to feel guilty to be honest.Lets face it,if the fish didn't like it they aren't made to do it.*


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> how do you know the fish are actually suffering???


I know this wasn't directed at me but the question I ask myself is.... What do the fish need in order to live a decent life?

The main factors are: 
water chemistry (free from ammonia, low in nitrate, a pH that meets the species needs, which varies etc...)

A stress free environment. For fish stress plays a major impact on health. Fish that are overcrowded, that have no areas of cover, that are subject to basically anything that is a contraindication to their preferred environment Ie: natural sedentary lake dwellers aren't going to fare well in a fast flowing river set up, will be exposed to un-necessary stress.

All of these factors and individual species needs are well understood in most instances because the aquatics industry is globally significant and the primary interests of hobbyists lies in keeping their fish optimally.

So the question then for me is, are these places providing what these fish need to live satisfactory decent lives and the answer would unfortunately be no.


----------



## bexy1989 (May 10, 2009)

I LOVE the fish pedicures  we have a 'APPY FEET' and another one called Aquazene, we tend to go to Aquazene as its quieter and you dont get people coming and asking you how it feels etc :lol:

We are taking my boyfriends mum when they are up in a few weeks as she is itching to give it a go but theres not one near her  

our feet are always washed throughly and checked before they go in the fish. 

They always help amazingly with cirrhosis. We are currently trying to find somewhere that does a full body one for my dad but not many do as it can get extremely expensive but they always change the water after every treatment no matter what. 

I deff wont stop having them done


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't agree with these things, mainly because the tanks are tiny for so many fish, and I just think its exploitation, and people get them installed in their salons because its a fad and the new big craze, money making scheme, rather than actually wanting to have animals and doing what is best for them!


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> you have to wash your feet thoroughly before you put them in the tank so there is no manky feet to begin with
> i just think we have different opinions which we are all entitled to, i love animals and would never hurt one but in my honest opinion* i think keeping cats indoors is cruel but that is just my opinion and i know lots disagree with me*


WTH? :lol: What's that got to do with the price of ... oh! 



archiebaby said:


> thank you nonnie, i am not going to be made to feel guilty for cruelty to fish i have seen a lot worse things happen to animals


Well then that makes it OK then! 

Can I ask though, what were your feet washed in before entering the tanks? and do you know if it will kill of all infections without poisoning the fish slowly as well?

I'm not saying your feet are infected, but I'd personally be worried that the folk who went in before me might have been!



JANICE199 said:


> *I don't see why you should be made to feel guilty to be honest.Lets face it,if the fish didn't like it they aren't made to do it.*


Hmm. What about those fish that are starved/kept hungry so that they 'work' for their keep? Does it make it OK?


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> WTH? :lol: What's that got to do with the price of ... oh!
> 
> because i think its cruel and many dont , same as with the fish and not sure what the wink is for
> 
> ...


i think you are taking this a bit too far are a lot of things ' ok '


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> thats the same place as in ashford ' appy feet '  that was exactly the same as my experiance!!!


Well when i went in just to nosey i can honestly say it didnt hit me as it been cruel at all.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> i think you are taking this a bit too far are a lot of things ' ok '


Ye so do i, i wouldnt imagine them washing feet in something that would poison fish tbh, ok people dont agree with it and thats fine but to nick pick on silly things is a tad over the top.
Ime sure these places have to be checked out at some point and i know the place in meadowhall has been opened a long time.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Aurelia said:


> WTH? :lol: What's that got to do with the price of ... oh!
> 
> Well then that makes it OK then!
> 
> ...


Lots of animals 'work' for their keep! Horses, dogs, cats etc etc etc 
Horses dont ask to be whacked across the arse with a whip to be made jump over fences or ask to pull carts etc.
Dogs dont ask to be paraded round a ring or bread from and neither do cats:hand:


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Im on the fence with this!


Part of me wants to give it a try as i work on my feet and have terribly hard skin, so this every so often would be a lovely treat, but i know i could just order a foot spa for at home.....


On the other hand, im not overly fond of sticking my feet into water which is full of fish.

They do it in plymouth, but its not in a shop, its in the middle of the drakes circus shopping center, well not middle but in the open....so may go and stand and watch one day, ask them about how they look after the fish and so


----------



## bexy1989 (May 10, 2009)

When we had it done the first time my mum slept the whole next day it relaxed her that much and when youve just had your feet done it feels like walking on clouds haha


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

bexy1989 said:


> When we had it done the first time my mum slept the whole next day it relaxed her that much and when youve just had your feet done it feels like walking on clouds haha


i also found it so relaxing


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> WTH? :lol: What's that got to do with the price of ... oh!
> 
> Well then that makes it OK then!
> 
> ...


*How can they be starving if they are feeding of off people's skin?Plus as has already been said they do get suppliments.*


----------



## lil muppet (Apr 4, 2008)

i have two things to say on this subject.

1) one store of the place i work for supplied one of these places with 1000 fish... 3 weeks later they only had 70 left 

2)
Fish pedicures to be investigated by Health Protection Agency | News | Practical Fishkeeping


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Are they? And if they are eating skin then isn't that them getting fed?Also why would they do it in the sea as well? I don't know about fish.*


Dead skin cells contain little to no nutritional value to a fish; they contain mainly Keratin which is more or less indigestible and less so than other dietary proteins. Fish will only rasp away at dead skin cells when all other food sources have been exhausted, so it is fairly safe to say the fish in these 'spas' are being deliberately starved in order to obtain this 'service'.

I'd advise everyone NOT to support these businesses. Not only are the aquariums grossly overstocked with fish that can grow to 15cm/6" in length, infectious pathogens and fungal infections thrive in the warm, humid environment of a 'fish spa'. Despite what fish spas claim, UV sterilization does not kill all pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria. Zoonotic Mycobacterium (responsible for Tubercolosis) are not killed by exposure to Ultra-Violet radiation.

It also seems that fish spas are using goldfish as alternatives to the usual _Garra rufa_. Goldfish have no 'rasping' qualities and the reason why spas have been using them is very simple: they're cheaper to buy wholesale. Going by the volume of fish circulating through these businesses, the costs of buying them must be hitting their finances. This shows that fish spas are concerned about one thing, and one thing only: profits.

Fish are not a beauty treatment, and the people who support fish spas are supporting animal cruelty.

If nobody believes me, take a look at the facts in Nicolette Craig's article in the May 2011 issue of Practical Fishkeeping. I can make this article available to anyone who wants a copy of it, just send me a PM with your e-mail address.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> Dead skin cells contain little to no nutritional value to a fish; they contain mainly Keratin which is more or less indigestible and less so than other dietary proteins. Fish will only rasp away at dead skin cells when all other food sources have been exhausted, so it is fairly safe to say the fish in these 'spas' are being deliberately starved in order to obtain this 'service'.
> 
> I'd advise everyone NOT to support these business. Not only are the aquariums grossly overstocked with fish that can grow to 15cm/6" in length, infectious pathogens and fungal infections thrive in the warm, humid environment of a 'fish spa'. Despite what fish spas claim, UV sterilization does not kill all pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria. Zoonotic Mycobacterium (responsible for Tubercolosis) are not killed by exposure to Ultra-Violet radiation.
> 
> ...


Whilsy as i have said i know nothing about fish.I did go onto the Practical Fishkeeping website and found this statement.
"Recent media reports have shown chin chin fish being used as a cheaper alternative for fish pedicures. These are the fry of large-growing Tilapia cichlids, and they have sharper teeth and grow much faster and larger than Garra rufa" Garra fish DON'T have teeth.
Fish pedicures could spread HIV, says UAE Ministry of Health | News | Practical Fishkeeping


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

I had it done at Zoola Fish in Guildford. I was worried so asked all sorts of questions. They said the fish were too expensive to not take care of. They checked everyone's feet (there was someone there they refused to let them do it as they had a verrucca). They also said that the tanks had large filters which meant the water was replaced regularly during the day.

The whole point of these is that it has been happening in the seas for years and its a well known treatment for skin conditions such as psoriasis, so surely the fish aren't being starved is they naturally do it in the wild?

I found it tickly, but very relaxing and my feet were so soft after 15 minutes. I would love an all over body one for my elbows etc!


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> Whilsy as i have said i know nothing about fish.I did go onto the Practical Fishkeeping website and found this statement.
> "Recent media reports have shown chin chin fish being used as a cheaper alternative for fish pedicures. These are the fry of large-growing Tilapia cichlids, and they have sharper teeth and grow much faster and larger than Garra rufa" Garra fish DON'T have teeth.
> Fish pedicures could spread HIV, says UAE Ministry of Health | News | Practical Fishkeeping


As a carp species I am sure that they do, it's just that they are positioned further back in the throat region. If you ever feed goldfish hard foods for instance you will hear them grinding the food up with their teeth, they just arent immediately visible unless you look further down the throat of the fish. My puffer on the otherhand had a proper toothy face and used to need regular dentistry because they overgrew, very like a rabbits set of teeth!


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

danielled said:


> No never have never will.


Same here


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Kinda sounds feral lol the words fish and personal grooming/hygeine just dont go together in my head


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> Whilsy as i have said i know nothing about fish.I did go onto the Practical Fishkeeping website and found this statement.
> "Recent media reports have shown chin chin fish being used as a cheaper alternative for fish pedicures. These are the fry of large-growing Tilapia cichlids, and they have sharper teeth and grow much faster and larger than Garra rufa" Garra fish DON'T have teeth.
> Fish pedicures could spread HIV, says UAE Ministry of Health | News | Practical Fishkeeping


As a member of the Cyprinid family, _Garra rufa_ do indeed have a set of bone-crushing Pharyngeal teeth at the back of the throat in the Pharyngeal arch.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

WelshOneEmma said:


> I had it done at Zoola Fish in Guildford. I was worried so asked all sorts of questions. They said the fish were too expensive to not take care of. They checked everyone's feet (there was someone there they refused to let them do it as they had a verrucca). They also said that the tanks had large filters which meant the water was replaced regularly during the day.
> 
> The whole point of these is that it has been happening in the seas for years and its a well known treatment for skin conditions such as psoriasis, so surely the fish aren't being starved is they naturally do it in the wild?


A filter doesn't replace any water, that has to be done manually via water changes. A filter simply harbours bacteria that break down solid waste (typically faeces, uneaten food and plant matter) and oxidise (the process of nitrification) ammonia into less harmful nitrogenous (that is, they contain nitrogen) waste compounds such as nitrite and nitrate.

_Garra rufa_ don't originate from the oceans or seas, they aren't a saltwater species. You're forgetting that in a natural environment other food sources other than dead skin cells - including aquatic invertebrates, algae and insects - are available.


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

I dont have a problem with it personally they are fish! We eat them for god sake, farmed fish are kept in there thousands pumped with chemicals to bulk them up in an unnatural enviroment for us to eat. The fish are bred to do this they dont know anything else and im sure if they didnt like eating dead skin they wouldnt do it after all it comes natural to them. If I didnt feed my dog im sure he wouldn't eat my feet  living off dead skin alone probably isnt 100% healthy for them but im sure they enjoy it a bit like taking a kid to mac donalds every day. I dont know how they can be starving the amount of skin they must eat they must be stuffed


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Marley boy said:


> I dont have a problem with it personally they are fish! We eat them for god sake, farmed fish are kept in there thousands pumped with chemicals to bulk them up in an unnatural enviroment for us to eat. The fish are bred to do this they dont know anything else and im sure if they didnt like eating dead skin they wouldnt do it after all it comes natural to them. If I didnt feed my dog im sure he wouldn't eat my feet  living off dead skin alone probably isnt 100% healthy for them but im sure they enjoy it a bit like taking a kid to mac donalds every day. I dont know how they can be starving the amount of skin they must eat they must be stuffed


So your official conclusion is...... fish are food, not friends?


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

Marley boy said:


> I dont have a problem with it personally they are fish! We eat them for god sake, farmed fish are kept in there thousands pumped with chemicals to bulk them up in an unnatural enviroment for us to eat. The fish are bred to do this they dont know anything else and im sure if they didnt like eating dead skin they wouldnt do it after all it comes natural to them. If I didnt feed my dog im sure he wouldn't eat my feet  living off dead skin alone probably isnt 100% healthy for them but im sure they enjoy it a bit like taking a kid to mac donalds every day. I dont know how they can be starving the amount of skin they must eat they must be stuffed


Commercially-farmed fish such as Rainbow Trout have slowly become quite adapted to crowded conditions in large, freshwater enclosures.

A fish will begin to scavenge if no other sources of food are available, fish aren't aware of the nutritional content of what they're putting in their mouths.

The mass of the food ingested is irrelevant; as I clearly stated in an earlier post dead skin cells primarily contain an indigestible protein called Keratin. If there is no digestible component in the skin cells, the fish will receive no nutritional benefit.

*Organisms - including fish - will grow and remain 'healthy' only if the correct amounts of minerals, vitamins, carbohydrates, proteins and fats are present in their food for simple life processes such as cell metabolism to occur.*


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

harley bear said:


> So your official conclusion is...... fish are food, not friends?


for me yes hmmmmmm fish and chips


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

Chillinator said:


> Commercially-farmed fish such as Rainbow Trout have slowly become quite adapted to crowded conditions in large, freshwater enclosures.
> 
> A fish will begin to scavenge if no other sources of food are available, fish aren't aware of the nutritional content of what they're putting in their mouths.
> 
> ...


yes but they dont need to remain healthy they prob only live for a week max and like you said like the rainbow fish, these fish will adapt aswell


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Marley boy said:


> for me yes hmmmmmm fish and chips


*pmsl and i bet not many would give a darn about how they sufferd for us humans.
eta..the fish not the chips.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> As a member of the Cyprinid family, _Garra rufa_ do indeed have a set of bone-crushing Pharyngeal teeth at the back of the throat in the Pharyngeal arch.


*Please explain why i cannot find anywhere where it says they have teeth.I've looked but have not come across this info.*


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Please explain why i cannot find anywhere where it says they have teeth.I've looked but have not come across this info.*


All species of the Carp (Cyprinid) family have a set of Pharyngeal teeth at the back of the throat. There are typically 1-3 rows of teeth with around 8 teeth per row.

You wouldn't see these teeth in the mouth, you would need to dissect the fish to find them.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

Marley boy said:


> yes but they dont need to remain healthy they prob only live for a week max and like you said like the rainbow fish, these fish will adapt aswell


Why should the fish not need to remain 'healthy'? Why should fish be used as a 'beauty' treatment? The stocking densities in fish farm enclosures are much lower than the average fish spa tank. I find it unusual that a small percentage of members from a community of so-called 'pet lovers' will actually promote the exploitation of a living organism for their own vanity.

A species can evolve and adapt over several generations through natural selection, many will die in the process if some individuals of a species cannot adapt to changes in their environment. However, it is humans that are driving these fish to their deaths as opposed to mother nature.

_Garra rufa_ may prove to be effective in treating skin conditions such as Psorasis, however in this case their use should be restricted to dermatology clinics and used on patients that need it. Fred Beaumont of the Institute of Chropodists and Podatrists has pointed out that you will probably obtain a far greater effect from using a pumice stone as opposed to fish.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

I think these fish pedicures are discusting myself! they are giving them away for around£12 a go in our area! I read not so long back of a woman who got a sever infection from it! It should be banned.

when we were in Jamacia there were some fish therethatusedto nibble at your ankles (think it were the sergent fish but could be wrong) I hated it!


----------



## coral. (May 11, 2011)

danielled said:


> No never have never will.


same! i dont really like the sound of it, and thinks its a bit cruel on the fish, i wouldnt like someone to stick there foot in my face :001_tongue:


----------



## dottylotty (Apr 1, 2010)

definitely something I would never try, poor fish. the tanks they use are not big enough for them, and why would anyone think the skin on our feet will be good for fish. stupid fad hope it disappears soon!!


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2011)

As I said earlier, I have the article on fish spas by Nicolette Craig from the May 2011 issue of PFK available to e-mail right away to anyone who wants a copy.

It does make for an interesting - if not a rather surprising - read.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Just had my first fish pedicure and it felt great.*


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Just had my first fish pedicure and it felt great.*


 you liked it then janice the feeling at first is so weird isnt it


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> you liked it then janice the feeling at first is so weird isnt it


*To be honest i thought it felt like a load of bbbles around my feet.Would love an all over one.*


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Just had my first fish pedicure and it felt great.*


A bit insensitive, don't you think? When you know some other members feel strongly that it amounts to animal abuse....:nono:
Whoohooo! I killed some puppies today. Felt so good!:nono:
Tsk tsk.


----------



## GiddyKipper (Mar 11, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Why should the fish not need to remain 'healthy'? Why should fish be used as a 'beauty' treatment? The stocking densities in fish farm enclosures are much lower than the average fish spa tank. *I find it unusual that a small percentage of members from a community of so-called 'pet lovers' will actually promote the exploitation of a living organism for their own vanity.
> *
> A species can evolve and adapt over several generations through natural selection, many will die in the process if some individuals of a species cannot adapt to changes in their environment. However, it is humans that are driving these fish to their deaths as opposed to mother nature.
> 
> _Garra rufa_ may prove to be effective in treating skin conditions such as Psorasis, however in this case their use should be restricted to dermatology clinics and used on patients that need it. Fred Beaumont of the Institute of Chropodists and Podatrists has pointed out that you will probably obtain a far greater effect from using a pumice stone as opposed to fish.


I second that. I don't understand why such exploitation is at all acceptable, especially acccording to people who would otherwise be up in arms if it was any other kind of organism.


----------



## Leah84 (Jun 22, 2009)

personally i never would and never could, i simply don`t agree with it and have heard that they starve the fish in order to get them to eat the dead skin off. the tanks conditions are appalling - even IF it wasn`t cruel on the fish, they still use the same water etc for every new person with lots of other peoples yummy dead skin floating around :scared: would you go to a dermatologist and allow them to use the same product on you that they`d just used on someone else?? i know i wouldn`t and by hygiene standards they`re also not allowed to. i just think it`s sick in every possible way and it creeps me out


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

koekemakranka said:


> A bit insensitive, don't you think? When you know some other members feel strongly that it amounts to animal abuse....:nono:
> Whoohooo! I killed some puppies today. Felt so good!:nono:
> Tsk tsk.


* As i have joined the debate on this thread before i see no reason why now i've tried it i shouldn't mention it.As for being insensitive that works both ways.*


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> * As i have joined the debate on this thread before i see no reason why now i've tried it i shouldn't mention it.As for being insensitive that works both ways. *


No, I believe you mentioned it to "rub our noses in it". At least, it came across that way.

And a triple  right back at ya.


----------



## GiddyKipper (Mar 11, 2011)

I find this incredibly sad. It's obviously cruel and unecessary. There are *experts* telling people _why_ it's cruel and unecessary. But people are happy ignore that, and support an example of animal cruelty because of their own vanity? 
I repeat that it would be an entirely different matter if it were fluffy kittens or puppies involved - people would be up in arms about it, but just because it's fish you're all happy to participate?

All because people can't be bothered to exfoliate their own feet. Just buy a PedEgg!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

koekemakranka said:


> No, I believe you mentioned it to "rub our noses in it". At least, it came across that way.
> 
> And a triple  right back at ya.


*Just for the record i did not post to "rub" anyones nose in anything.Just because your views differ from mine doesn't make your views right.Get over yaself.*


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Just for the record i did not post to "rub" anyones nose in anything.Just because your views differ from mine doesn't make your views right.Get over yaself.*


I think you feel guilty about your condoning and participating in what is actually a form of animal abuse. And yes, in this case, I think I am right...and you are wrong.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

koekemakranka said:


> I think you feel guilty about your condoning and participating in what is actually a form of animal abuse. And yes, in this case, I think I am right...and you are wrong.


*Think what you like i have a mind of my own thanks very much.As for me feeling guilty,lmfao i can assure you i don't.*


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Now now, folks, either discuss this properly and in a mature tone or I'll have the thread closed.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Lol!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Unfortunately the beauty industry is one of the major exploiters of animals and consequent cruelty one way or another.

Strange how folk tend to turn a blindeye to something like this.


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Think what you like i have a mind of my own thanks very much.As for me feeling guilty,lmfao i can assure you i don't.*


Wow, speaks volumes!

Poor fish, I don't understand that even with all the information on this thread alone ... how people can still think it's OK to use these places 

No matter how you look at it, if you have read the information about what a fish needs to live a healthy life, there is no doubt that this practice/fad is cruel.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Unfortunately the beauty industry is one of the major exploiters of animal Cruelty one way or another.
> 
> Strange how folk tend to turn a blindeye to something like this.


Very true, i do think that the species in question plays a part in this. Fish arent cute and alot of people have minimal understanding about them in terms of requirements for a quality of life. Experts have said it is cruel, who are we, as layman, to dispute that?

But because the understanding of fish and their requirement, and the comfort levels is low, it is deemed more socially acceptable than if you were paying for a pack of puppies to lick your injuries in a highstreet shop


----------



## GiddyKipper (Mar 11, 2011)

Savahl said:


> Very true, i do think that the species in question plays a part in this. Fish arent cute and alot of people have minimal understanding about them in terms of requirements for a quality of life. Experts have said it is cruel, who are we, as layman, to dispute that?
> 
> *But because the understanding of fish and their requirement, and the comfort levels is low, it is deemed more socially acceptable than if you were paying for a pack of puppies to lick your injuries in a highstreet shop*


Thats exactly what I'm talking about


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> Wow, speaks volumes!
> 
> Poor fish, I don't understand that even with all the information on this thread alone ... how people can still think it's OK to use these places
> 
> No matter how you look at it, if you have read the information about what a fish needs to live a healthy life, there is no doubt that this practice/fad is cruel.


*Would you prefer i lied? Funny how some come on here bragging that they can speak their minds no matter what but others get shot down for doing the same.:lol::lol:*


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Would you prefer i lied? Funny how some come on here bragging that they can speak their minds no matter what but others get shot down for doing the same.:lol::lol:*


I personally find it incredible that someone would be prepared to admit to and be happy about supporting animal cruelty on a PET forum. But if that's how you honestly feel then that's your prerogative. But it does speak volumes!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Aurelia said:


> I personally find it incredible that someone would be *prepared to admit to *and be happy about supporting animal cruelty on a PET forum. But if that's how you honestly feel then that's your prerogative. But it does speak volumes!


In Janices defence, i dont think anyone should feel they CANT say certain things regarding their passtime.. they should prepare for critism depending on those activities, but no reason why they shouldnt be honest.

I do, however, find it strange that despite the arguments against these "spa" shops, that anyone would still go and use one armed with that knowledge. The excuse of ignorance is gone.

Personally I dont know enough to really pass an educated judgement however would not use one based on what evidence I have seen. Iv not seen enough (or any) evidence in support of them to clear my conscience enough to use it. If someone presented my with facts and data in favour of them, only *then* i would consider it.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Ok, I'm confused. If the fish are being starved to ensure they eat dead skin, and wouldn't need to do so if they were fed how they would be in the wild, then what's this all about:-

First photo is happening upon the pool and thinking that'd be a good place to cool our hot and stinky feet. The second photo is me just before realising that my feet were being EATEN BY PIRANHAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the last photo is my feet being nibbled by teeny weeny fish (I ringed them in red, incase you were wondering) - I presume the same kind that used in Dr Fish et al? The pool was beautiful, bit of algae and weed in some spots and being fed from a waterfall further back. So why did they eat our dead skin and seem pretty keen on it?

(God, I think the photos are the wrong way round, anyway, you'll work it out!)

Oh and by the by, once I got over the shock, I left my feet in the water for about 20 minutes to no discernible difference.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Fluffed said:


> Ok, I'm confused. If the fish are being starved to ensure they eat dead skin, and wouldn't need to do so if they were fed how they would be in the wild, then what's this all about:-
> 
> First photo is happening upon the pool and thinking that'd be a good place to cool our hot and stinky feet. The second photo is me just before realising that my feet were being EATEN BY PIRANHAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the last photo is my feet being nibbled by teeny weeny fish - I presume the same kind that used in Dr Fish et al? The pool was beautiful, bit of algae and weed in some spots and being fed from a waterfall further back. So why did they eat our dead skin and seem pretty keen on it?
> 
> ...


For me it's not the skin eating that is the ethical issue here. It's that the fish are being kept in huge stocking densities in bare tanks. No substrates, no plants, nothing. Which is a highly stressful environment for most wild type fish, even for the more domesticated species it is far from what they require to be happy. And that is leaving asides the impact of colossal stocking on water chemistry that forms the basis of all good fish husbandry.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> Ok, I'm confused. If the fish are being starved to ensure they eat dead skin, and wouldn't need to do so if they were fed how they would be in the wild, then what's this all about:-
> 
> First photo is happening upon the pool and thinking that'd be a good place to cool our hot and stinky feet. The second photo is me just before realising that my feet were being EATEN BY PIRANHAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the last photo is my feet being nibbled by teeny weeny fish (I ringed them in red, incase you were wondering) - I presume the same kind that used in Dr Fish et al? The pool was beautiful, bit of algae and weed in some spots and being fed from a waterfall further back. So why did they eat our dead skin and seem pretty keen on it?
> 
> ...


Take note at just how many fish are scraping away at your feet - there are about _half a dozen_ fish out of maybe several hundred in a pool of that size. Take into consideration the level of natural food available and natural phenomena such as out-competition for natural food by the other fish; effectively forcing some to scavenge.

It's hardly conclusive.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Well I for one...if I had the guts to do it WOULD try it out.....havent read the thread, wish it was brought out many year ago, coz I had a lump of dead skin that needed chewing on,,,it was called Ex-Husband.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Well I for one...if I had the guts to do it WOULD try it out.....havent read the thread, wish it was brought out many year ago, coz I had a lump of dead skin that needed chewing on,,,it was called Ex-Husband.


*pmsl love the last bit. It doesn't feel bad at all,actualy it just feels like a lot of bubbles.*


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Well they use leaches for blood clotting so why not fish for this. Im sure if it was bad for the fish they would be floating on the top of the water, you have to wash your feet before going to the tanks anyway and they check over your feet before accepting you, any cuts or breaks and your not allowed to use this treatment.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

jenniferx said:


> For me it's not the skin eating that is the ethical issue here. It's that the fish are being kept in huge stocking densities in bare tanks. No substrates, no plants, nothing. Which is a highly stressful environment for most wild type fish, even for the more domesticated species it is far from what they require to be happy. And that is leaving asides the impact of colossal stocking on water chemistry that forms the basis of all good fish husbandry.


Yes! that is part of my concerns to! And besides, I am not claiming to knowing anything about either the fish Pedi nor their housing requirements, 
But what really I find pretty discusting about how many pairs of feet have been in that tank? Correct me if I am wrong but I do not suppose that the water is changed after every treatment, or do they take the fish out of their'living' tank and put them it a clean tank every time someone goes for one of these pedi's? ThisI understand isnot goodfor the finsh anyway!

Dunno who dreampt up this l fad , money making scam call it what you like!

And thinking of the fish I doubt those offering this service know the first thing about fish!

besides there was in the newspaper recently a report on someone who had been infected!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Banned in fourteen states in the USA

Infection warning over fish pedicure craze sweeping Britain | Mail Online


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Personally I would never have one - because I dont really like fish and im a bit of a germaphobe and hate feet and the thought of sharing the water with others skin bits! - that said I accept that others like them - my sister goes regularly - I actually think its bang out of order for people to be accusing others of animal abuse! - ffs lets get things into perspective here - throwing a puppy off a high rise flat is animal abuse - putting your feet in a tank of fish for them too feed off is not - a low blow imo!!! if you disagree fair enough but throwing the word abuse around seems to come very easy to some members and should not be allowed.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Well they use leaches for blood clotting so why not fish for this. Im sure if it was bad for the fish they would be floating on the top of the water, you have to wash your feet before going to the tanks anyway and they check over your feet before accepting you, any cuts or breaks and your not allowed to use this treatment.


*When i had it done i had to fill in a form,give my name and addy,phone number ect.My feet were checked then i had to rinse them before putting them in the tank.And before anyone says anything,yes i do know people could give false details.I personaly don't see it any worse than keeping a bird caged all its life but people don't tell those that do it " they have no respect for living creatures.":hand:*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Well I for one...if I had the guts to do it WOULD try it out.....havent read the thread, wish it was brought out many year ago, coz I had a lump of dead skin that needed chewing on,,,it was called Ex-Husband.


PMSL!!! - my OH's feet are terrible!! I hate all feet tbo soooo unattractive!


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

I know the fish are called Garru fish that and they have a natural healing enzimes in their saliva, the tanks are filtered and they have Uv lights kill of any bacteria in the tank anyway, this have been going on in america for years.


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm sorry but not providing a living creature with a healthy living environment is abuse and cruelty. Why shouldn't we be allowed to say it? 

Add the that the fact it's done for monetary gain ... Is it because the fish don't yelp or scream because they are hungry, or can't breathe because their air (water in this case) is full of toxins? Is that why it's acceptable? because you can't see or hear their suffering, and you probably won't see them floating dead in the tank often either because they would obviously be scooped out quickly to avoid detection (because this would probably be the only clear sign the fish were not being kept properly).

I just don't understand why anyone who cares a jot about living creatures would exploit them in such a way for something that is not even a medical requirement in a vast majority of cases. It's just for your own vanity really.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> I know the fish are called Garru fish that and they have a natural healing enzimes in their saliva, the tanks are filtered and they have Uv lights kill of any bacteria in the tank anyway, this have been going on in america for years.


I saw it in the USA the last time we were there! they seemed massive set ups next to the one I have seen in our local 'barbers' I have read that seventeen states have now banned this practise. wonder why they was?


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *When i had it done i had to fill in a form,give my name and addy,phone number ect.My feet were checked then i had to rinse them before putting them in the tank.And before anyone says anything,yes i do know people could give false details.I personaly don't see it any worse than keeping a bird caged all its life but people don't tell those that do it " they have no respect for living creatures.":hand:*


Birds kept in cages are not starved and then introduced to someones feet to peck at!

Deary me :lol:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> Birds kept in cages are not starved and then introduced to someones feet to peck at!
> 
> Deary me :lol:


*Honestly?:lol::lol:*


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> I saw it in the USA the last time we were there! they seemed massive set ups next to the one I have seen in our local 'barbers' I have read that seventeen states have now banned this practise. wonder why they was?


Smaller ones easier and cleaner to look after prob's


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> I'm sorry but not providing a living creature with a healthy living environment is abuse and cruelty. Why shouldn't we be allowed to say it?
> 
> Add the that the fact it's done for monetary gain ... Is it because the fish don't yelp or scream because they are hungry, or can't breathe because their air (water in this case) is full of toxins? Is that why it's acceptable? because you can't see or hear their suffering, and you probably won't see them floating dead in the tank often either because they would obviously be scooped out quickly to avoid detection (because this would probably be the only clear sign the fish were not being kept properly).
> 
> I just don't understand why anyone who cares a jot about living creatures would exploit them in such a way for something that is not even a medical requirement in a vast majority of cases. It's just for your own vanity really.


You are quite free to call the practise whatever you like of course you are - but to accuse members of the forum of animal abuse is out of order imo - its going too far - lets get it straight the practise you disagree with - fine but dont say others condone animal abuse - you are treading a fine line there imo - unfortunately many animals are exploited for human use - our own pets included - you keep your cats in something I personally think is cruel but I would never accuse you of abuse because I know you love your pets - we all do.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Aurelia said:


> Birds kept in cages are not starved and then introduced to someones feet to peck at!
> 
> Deary me :lol:


I dont think there is any need to be flippant, every one is having their say on how they feel about it. Not everyone is going to agree.:nono:


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

If the practice is cruel the people using it are condoning cruelty  Though I suspect it's more ignorance for most users. But when you have the fact available to you and you still decide to use them? .... ?

Just to be clear, I don't think I actually said anyone was being cruel, just supporting it or condoning it. So please don't twist my words.

On that note I'm outta here cause I've a lot to do today still


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> You are quite free to call the practise whatever you like of course you are - but to accuse members of the forum of animal abuse is out of order imo - its going too far - lets get it straight the practise you disagree with - fine but dont say others condone animal abuse - you are treading a fine line there imo - unfortunately many animals are exploited for human use - our own pets included - you keep your cats in something I personally think is cruel but I would never accuse you of abuse because I know you love your pets - we all do.


I think there are many issues in pet keeping are always up for debate but are there no absolutes? For instance would premature death, sustained stress and deliberate poisoning not qualify as something we might all all agree =bad? Whatever the animal. Or is that subjectively OK if we don't really care about the species?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

T'is actually 21 states that it is banned in in the USA Thats nearer half then a quarter of the states


have the total currently at 21 states and can confirm that the treatment by licenced establishments is banned in these states.

Washington, Arizona, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, New York, New Hampshire, Georgia, Florida, California 
Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah.

judging by the increase in popularity here that we must be importing their redundant fish/cast offs whatever you call em!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> I personally find it incredible that someone would be prepared to admit to and be happy about supporting animal cruelty on a PET forum. But if that's how you honestly feel then that's your prerogative. But it does speak volumes!





Aurelia said:


> If the practice is cruel the people using it are condoning cruelty  Though I suspect it's more ignorance for most users. But when you have the fact available to you and you still decide to use them? .... ?
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't think I actually said anyone was being cruel, just supporting it or condoning it. So please don't twist my words.
> 
> On that note I'm outta here cause I've a lot to do today still


Your quote above pretty much said that the person was "supporting" animal cruelty - isnt that the same thing??  I dont think I twisted any words.

The people who condone it dont think its cruel - its not that they are ignorant they just dont view it the same as you difference of opinion


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> If the practice is cruel the people using it are condoning cruelty  Though I suspect it's more ignorance for most users. But when you have the fact available to you and you still decide to use them? .... ?
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't think I actually said anyone was being cruel, just supporting it or condoning it. So please don't twist my words.
> 
> On that note I'm outta here cause I've a lot to do today still


*What some people see as being cruel others don't.I personaly don't see this as cruel.I can't for the life of me understand how people can say,eat meat or fish and dont see it as cruel but can moan about something like a fish ped.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

jenniferx said:


> I think there are many issues in pet keeping are always up for debate but are there no absolutes? For instance would premature death, sustained stress and deliberate poisoning not qualify as something we might all all agree =bad? Whatever the animal. Or is that subjectively OK if we don't really care about the species?


of course but there are no absolutes that all the fish in all the shops in the whole country are not kept in the correct conditions - I would imagine there would have to be some sort of controlled report to ensure the safety of the fish etc - trading standards and all that - esp in this country.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Well they use leaches for blood clotting so why not fish for this. Im sure if it was bad for the fish they would be floating on the top of the water, you have to wash your feet before going to the tanks anyway and they check over your feet before accepting you, any cuts or breaks and your not allowed to use this treatment.


Poor water conditions cause fish to go belly-up in the short-term, rather than rasping at dead skin on feet.

The European medicincal leech (_Hirudo medicinalis_) has a much higher tolerance for poor water quality than any known species of fish.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> Poor water conditions cause fish to go belly-up in the short-term, rather than rasping at dead skin on feet.
> 
> The European medicincal leech (_Hirudo medicinalis_) has a much higher tolerance for poor water quality than any known species of fish.


But as others say its still exploiting an animal form that could potentially die thru its exploitation from humans = animal abuse


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> But as others say its still exploiting an animal form that could potentially die thru its exploitation from humans = animal abuse


Technically, using fish for this 'service' is tantamount to animal abuse given the high number of fish that die within a couple of weeks after arriving at a fish spa from the supplier. We're talking about dozens - if not hundreds - of specimens that are purchased cheaply from suppliers who produce them in the thousands.

Then there's the fact they're kept in adverse conditions and starve to death if the poor water quality doesn't kill them first.

It's more complicated to explain if people don't quite understand the basics of aquatic biology and chemistry.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Ok, Chillinator, you're obviously an expert - would you just answer my question posted way back...... hang on I'll find the post.......... tum te tum....... oh here we go http://www.petforums.co.uk/1061213943-post178.html


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> Poor water conditions cause fish to go belly-up in the short-term, rather than rasping at dead skin on feet.
> 
> The European medicincal leech (_Hirudo medicinalis_) has a much higher tolerance for poor water quality than any known species of fish.


UV lights and water filtering constantly in the tanks, supplements fed.  Like it or not people are going to try it out.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Technically, using fish for this 'service' is tantamount to animal abuse given the high number of fish that die within a couple of weeks after arriving at a fish spa from the supplier. We're talking about dozens - if not hundreds - of specimens that are purchased cheaply from suppliers who produce them in the thousands.
> 
> Then there's the fact they're kept in adverse conditions and starve to death if the poor water quality doesn't kill them first.


At the end of the day Chillinator it is all about money! those who have jumped on the band wagon have seen an opportunity to make a fast buck at the expense of the unforunate animals (in this case fish) Also the price they are charging is peanuts next to the cost of a pedicure and treatment (groupon had it on at £9 recenlty and our barbers charge £12) The price therefore attracts people that would not'normally' bother with feet treatment from a professional which would cost perhaps three or four times as much!

Yep! it is all down to greed and money! As I said in anearlier post the beauty trade has a lot to answer for! and it's hardly as if our lives depend on it is it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> Ok, Chillinator, you're obviously an expert - would you just answer my question posted way back...... hang on I'll find the post.......... tum te tum....... oh here we go http://www.petforums.co.uk/1061213943-post178.html


I believe I already have answered your question.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not an expert. I dislike the term, it's too broad.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

DoubleTrouble said:


> At the end of the day Chillinator it is all about money! those who have jumped on the band wagon have seen an opportunity to make a fast buck at the expense of the unforunate animals (in this case fish) Also the price they are charging is peanuts next to the cost of a pedicure and treatment (groupon had it on at £9 recenlty and our barbers charge £12) The price therefore attracts people that would not'normally' bother with feet treatment from a professional which would cost perhaps three or four times as much!
> 
> Yep! it is all down to greed and money! As I said in anearlier post the beauty trade has a lot to answer for! and it's hardly as if our lives depend on it is it?


Certainly, it is about profits. The big boom in fish spas around the globe has been noticed by people who have seen a niche in the market here in the UK and have decided to exploit it. Several marketing claims made by fish spas have been proven to be false and unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence.

One thing that consumers don't understand is this: they are wasting their money on fish spa treatments to cure dermatological conditions such as psoriasis.

Research has found that most cases of psoriasis (for example) 'treated' using _Garra rufa_ also required several courses of exposure to UV radiation.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> Technically, using fish for this 'service' is tantamount to animal abuse given the high number of fish that die within a couple of weeks after arriving at a fish spa from the supplier. We're talking about dozens - if not hundreds - of specimens that are purchased cheaply from suppliers who produce them in the thousands.
> 
> Then there's the fact they're kept in adverse conditions and starve to death if the poor water quality doesn't kill them first.
> 
> It's more complicated to explain if people don't quite understand the basics of aquatic biology and chemistry.


*Are you saying then that this practice is wrong even if the fish are kept in good conditions and are fed the proper food? Genuine question.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> Technically, using fish for this 'service' is tantamount to animal abuse given the high number of fish that die within a couple of weeks after arriving at a fish spa from the supplier. We're talking about dozens - if not hundreds - of specimens that are purchased cheaply from suppliers who produce them in the thousands.
> 
> Then there's the fact they're kept in adverse conditions and starve to death if the poor water quality doesn't kill them first.
> 
> It's more complicated to explain if people don't quite understand the basics of aquatic biology and chemistry.


Yes I can accept that SOME may not be up to standard but surely all of this is checked out by Trading Standards - the Shops must have to have certain rules and regulations in place to be able to operate under the animal welfare act etc. Lets face it many people who keep fish do not do so in the correct environment or the correct tank - like u say this is mostly because they dont understand but that doesnt mean they are committing animal cruelty in it's absolute form....


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> of course but there are no absolutes that all the fish in all the shops in the whole country are not kept in the correct conditions - I would imagine there would have to be some sort of controlled report to ensure the safety of the fish etc - trading standards and all that - esp in this country.


But the conditions in which the fish are being kept in the spas inherently cause those issues. The bare tanks, the stocking densities, the stress and the water chemistry. It has been repeated many times on this thread, for those that don't want to believe it they can research all these variables for themselves.

Regulation that applies to the welfare of fish is, in general, crap. Species that should not even be in captivity (wild caught and incapable of long term captive survival, fish that reach 6 feet at adulthood etc..) are regularly sold in aquatics shops, fish that have been artificially dyed, had their tails cut off so they are a prettier 'shape', been bred with life limiting deformities; no one really cares.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> Yes I can accept that SOME may not be up to standard but surely all of this is checked out by Trading Standards - the Shops must have to have certain rules and regulations in place to be able to operate under the animal welfare act etc. Lets face it many people who keep fish do not do so in the correct environment or the correct tank - like u say this is mostly because they dont understand but that doesnt mean they are committing animal cruelty in it's absolute form....


Trading Standards do check these fish spas, however they don't regulate how they run on a daily basis.

There are no such legal requirements relating to factors such as stocking densities, filtration, tank size, feeding etc.

The fact is, no fish spa can be described as 'up to standard' as they all have one thing in common: they keep the fish in adverse and completely unsuitable conditions.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

The Garra-fish do need supplementary feeding, despite the fact that most people think they only require a diet of dead skin; they should be fed a seaweed based food with added nutrients to keep them healthy. This additional food is usually only required about two or three times a week so the cost here is also quite low. 

Filter maintenance and cleaning of the unit will also be required however the better systems use specially designed filters that require little time to clean. This general maintenance is required to keep the fish healthy and the Garra Rufa fish units hygienic.

Mechanical filtration. This is the process of removing water borne solids such as fish waste. 
Biological filtration. The process of removing and converting harmful bacteria to ensure the health of the garra fish. 
These forms of filtration are especially important within a Garra rufa fish tank due to the exceptionally high volume contained within the unit. Your suppliers knowledge of these matters will give you confidence about how effective and efficient the systems that they provide are. 

UV sterilization. Important to the health of Garra-fish, UV light kills harmful bacteria and pathogens that affect the health of both your fish and water. 

Garra-Filter systems should also include a heater with thermostat to ensure temperature control. The recommended temperature for happy fish is 20-35°C.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Are you saying then that this practice is wrong even if the fish are kept in good conditions and are fed the proper food? Genuine question.*


It's a genuine question, but a rather pointless one. You can't keep these fish in 'good' conditions and yet overstock the tanks deliberately. Putting too many fish in a tank will result in poor quality, regardless of the filtration used.

If the fish are fed a correct diet, they will no longer have the need to scavenge for food (in this case, rasping away at dead skin cells) and the 'pedicure service' will be lost.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> The Garra-fish do need supplementary feeding, despite the fact that most people think they only require a diet of dead skin; they should be fed a seaweed based food with added nutrients to keep them healthy. This additional food is usually only required about two or three times a week so the cost here is also quite low.
> 
> Filter maintenance and cleaning of the unit will also be required however the better systems use specially designed filters that require little time to clean. This general maintenance is required to keep the fish healthy and the Garra Rufa fish units hygienic.
> 
> ...


I can see that this has been peeled off Garra Rufa systems.

Allow me to address a few errors:

1) _Garra rufa_ is omnivorous, that is the species consumes both animal and plant matter. This species constantly grazes away at algae from rocks and other hard surfaces in their natural habitat. While feeding the fish only 2-3 times a week isn't going to do any harm, feeding them on nothing but a seaweed-based food simply isn't going to cut it.

2) Filters that process huge volumes of solid waste need one thing: very regular maintenance. This is essential to prevent the filtration system from clogging. Going by my knowledge of the latest equipment (enthusiast and commercial grade) there isn't any filtration system in existence that somehow magically reduces the amount of maintenance required on it.

3) Biological filtration does _NOT_ refer to "removing and converting harmful bacteria". Biological filtration is a component of the entire filtration process that involves the nitrogen cycle. Bacteria are used - not removed - to convert harmful ammonia produced by the fish and from decomposing waste into less harmful waste compounds such as nitrite and nitrate.

4) UV filtration does kill many species of pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria, but not every species. Several water-borne species such as Zoonotic Mycobacteria are resistant to exposure to UV light.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

That was googled, I know nothing about these fish, you googled it aswell then  These fish are scavengers this is what they do, as long as they have good qualilty water and it is kept clean, uv to kill bacteria, then we are giving them constant food all day UNTIL they get their suppliments morning and night time. so really we arent abusing them we are actually feeding them.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> I can see that this has been peeled off Garra Rufa systems.
> 
> Allow me to address a few errors:
> 
> ...


Yep I googled it same as you did,


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> as long as they have good qualilty water and it is kept clean


That's a bit of an impossible task when you have 150 or so 15cm _Garra rufa_ in a tank containing little more than around 100-120 lires.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> That's a bit of an impossible task when you have 150 or so 15cm _Garra rufa_ in a tank containing little more than around 100-120 lires.


We are not on a massive scale like USA. So I would'nt know what they do over here, but if I had the guts to put my feet in the tank I would defo have a go.

God all this talk about fish, I need fish and chips


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

I was out shopping today and saw one of these places on my way to the clothes shop. It was quite busy. I didn't have time to stop though and investigate any further as the shop I was going to was closing early and I needed my new fur coat for a party tomorrow (the fur is gorgeous...might take a pic and upload it later) after I've cooked the dinner...roast beef wellington...smells delicious.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> We are not on a massive scale like USA. So I would'nt know what they do over here, but if I had the guts to put my feet in the tank I would defo have a go.
> 
> God all this talk about fish, I need fish and chips


I am based in the UK, in case you didn't know.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> That's a bit of an impossible task when you have 150 or so 15cm _Garra rufa_ in a tank containing little more than around 100-120 lires.


*The place i went to didn't have that many fish in their tanks.The lady told me there was about 50 in each tank.She did say that some places use 100 or more but she wouldn't as she thought it was far too many and not necessary.*


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> I am based in the UK, in case you didn't know.


Luke I KNOW were your based, I have been here long enough. I am saying over in america it have been banned, well they are on a massive scale, we are not as big as they are so our salons have smaller tanks, so got to be easier to maintain, (if they do it right). NO one is going to know exactly what each salon is going to do, but the fact is no matter what everyone thinks, this is going to go on and people will want to try it. there are alot of other animals going through different things not just fish, which I know nothing about.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *The place i went to didn't have that many fish in their tanks.The lady told me there was about 50 in each tank.She did say that some places use 100 or more but she wouldn't as she thought it was far too many and not necessary.*


Even 50 specimens are more than enough enough to tip the water quality over the edge. _Garra rufa_ are chunky fish and produce large amounts of waste.

To maintain optimal water conditions, no more than about six individuals should be kept in an average spa tank. This takes adult sizes into account.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

classixuk said:


> I was out shopping today and saw one of these places on my way to the clothes shop. It was quite busy. I didn't have time to stop though and investigate any further as the shop I was going to was closing early and I needed my new fur coat for a party tomorrow (the fur is gorgeous...might take a pic and upload it later) after I've cooked the dinner...roast beef wellington...smells delicious.


haha so needed a laugh


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Sorry if this is a dim question but do fish require enrichment? As all I've seen in all the articles I've read so far is _Garra rufa_ being kept in bare tanks with quite high stocking densities, surely that on its own is detrimental to their welfare


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

I'm going to ask a moderator to close this thread as it's slowly getting out of hand.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with people who make irrelevant and pointless comparisons between what I'm fighting for and the fact that I'm also a sport angler. 

I have explained the differences many times, and I'm not explaining this again.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> I'm going to ask a moderator to close this thread as it's slowly getting out of hand.
> 
> I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with people who make irrelevant and pointless comparisons between what I'm fighting for and the fact that I'm also a sport angler.
> 
> I have explained the differences many times, and I'm not explaining this again.


I think its best dont you  seems to be going round in circles, your a sports angler,, so you use bait. I rest my case Luke. over and out.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> I think its best dont you  seems to be going round in circles, your a sports angler,, so you use bait. I rest my case Luke. over and out.


No, I don't use bait, I use lures and fly imitations. A profound difference.


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Closing this for time being.... need to dash out for an hour


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

reopened as requested


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Tanya1989 said:


> reopened as requested


LOL. Just noticed your sig banner. "Mess with Tanya and she'll Banya!"

Hilarious.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> No, I don't use bait, I use lures and fly imitations. A profound difference.


And the hooks still go into the fish's mouth when caught so that is cruel aswell, no difference is it


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> And the hooks still go into the fish's mouth when caught so that is cruel aswell, no difference is it


The hooks cause no pain, as it has been proven by extensive scientific research. Anglers do a hell of a lot for the environment, including conserving fish stocks and our natural waterways.

I use barbless hooks and keep the fish in the water whilst I unhook them, as do about 99.9% of anglers who practice catch and release.

Either way, this argument is not about angling, farming or anything else apart from one thing: _Garra rufa_. I suggest we keep this on topic.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> The hooks cause no pain, as it has been proven by extensive scientific research. Anglers do a hell of a lot for the environment, including conserving fish stocks and our natural waterways.
> 
> I use barbless hooks and keep the fish in the water whilst I unhook them, as do about 99.9% of anglers who practice catch and release.


I think the point that Welshie is trying to make is that you angle for your own pleasure, and not that of the fish, therefore it is a little hypocritical to be the defender of the garra rufa when the occasional pike ends up hooked for your own satisfaction.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Sorry if this is a dim question but do fish require enrichment? As all I've seen in all the articles I've read so far is _Garra rufa_ being kept in bare tanks with quite high stocking densities, surely that on its own is detrimental to their welfare


A completely bare tank is an unnatural environment, a lack of suitable retreats means fish become stressed. More stress is placed on the fish when feet are immersed in the water.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> I think the point that Welshie is trying to make is that you angle for your own pleasure, and not that of the fish, therefore it is a little hypocritical to be the defender of the garra rufa when the occasional pike ends up hooked for your own satisfaction.


The two can't be compared, a fish in an expansive lake that's occasionally caught using a hook and line has a much higher quality of life than a single _Garra rufa_ in an overcrowded fish spa tank.

Anglers respect the fish; sadly the same can't be said for people who readily hand over their money to have their feet pedicured by fish.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> The two can't be compared, a fish in an expansive lake that's occasionally caught using a hook and line has a much higher quality of life than a single _Garra rufa_ in an overcrowded fish spa tank.
> 
> Anglers respect the fish; sadly the same can't be said for people who readily hand over their money to have their feet pedicured by fish.


But wouldn't the fish in the lake have an even better quality of life if they weren't "occasionally caught using a hook"? What if they were just free to swim all day and enjoy the lake?

You can't have one rule for one etc.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> The hooks cause no pain, as it has been proven by extensive scientific research. Anglers do a hell of a lot for the environment, including conserving fish stocks and our natural waterways.
> 
> I use barbless hooks and keep the fish in the water whilst I unhook them, as do about 99.9% of anglers who practice catch and release.
> 
> Either way, this argument is not about angling, farming or anything else apart from one thing: _Garra rufa_. I suggest we keep this on topic.





classixuk said:


> I think the point that Welshie is trying to make is that you angle for your own pleasure, and not that of the fish, therefore it is a little hypocritical to be the defender of the garra rufa when the occasional pike ends up hooked for your own satisfaction.


Thank yuo, someone who understands what my point is about it all.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> The hooks cause no pain, as it has been proven by extensive scientific research. Anglers do a hell of a lot for the environment, including conserving fish stocks and our natural waterways.
> 
> I use barbless hooks and keep the fish in the water whilst I unhook them, as do about 99.9% of anglers who practice catch and release.
> 
> Either way, this argument is not about angling, farming or anything else apart from one thing: _Garra rufa_. I suggest we keep this on topic.


But it is still CRUEL as it sticks into their mouth, so that is a form of cruelty like you and others have said about fish peds being cruel. You mentioned Angling and nothing was mentioned about farming, so part of the topic that this have gone into IS cruelty.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> But wouldn't the fish in the lake have an even better quality of life if they weren't "occasionally caught using a hook"? What if they were just free to swim all day and enjoy the lake?
> 
> You can't have one rule for one etc.


As I've said, a hook causes no pain, I can provide valid and in-date evidence for this. The brain of a fish simply isn't developed enough to interpret adverse stimuli as pain.

In ideal conditions, fish 'recover' from being caught within a few minutes of being released. Often the fish are tagged by some anglers (to monitor wild stocks) or their sizes recorded. Several well-known specimens of Carp that live in our lakes have been tagged and are still going strong after more than 30 years.

A fish in a lake or river has a fair chance - a_ Garra rufa_ in a fish spa is given an instant death warrant.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

I don't think anyone has answered my query yet- could be wrong as have not checked the entire thread!

But is these fish pedicures are so wonderful why have they beenbanned in21 states in the USA?

Or am I too assume they have just been banned for no reason


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> But it is still CRUEL as it sticks into their mouth, so that is a form of cruelty like you and others have said about fish peds being cruel. You mentioned Angling and nothing was mentioned about farming, so part of the topic that this have gone into IS cruelty.


That's your opinion. I provided the fact that I fish for sport to deliver a more balanced argument so people won't think I'm some kind of left-wing, animal-rights junkie.

Do I think angling is cruel? No. Why? Because it's a simple fact that if a fish simply can't interpret painful stimuli in their mouthparts, it can't be 'suffering' from 'cruelty' when it's hooked.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> As I've said, a hook causes no pain, I can provide valid and in-date evidence for this. The brain of a fish simply isn't developed enough to interpret adverse stimuli as pain.
> 
> In ideal conditions, fish 'recover' from being caught within a few minutes of being released. Often the fish are tagged by some anglers (to monitor wild stocks) or their sizes recorded. Several well-known specimens of Carp that live in our lakes have been tagged and are still going strong after more than 30 years.
> 
> A fish in a lake or river has a fair chance - a_ Garra rufa_ in a fish spa is given an instant death warrant.


Could you answer a question for us though?

Do you angle for your pleasure, or that of the fish?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

DoubleTrouble said:


> But is these fish pedicures are so wonderful why have they beenbanned in21 states in the USA?


These states have banned fish spas primarily because of health risks associated with them, including the transmission of pathogenic bacteria, HIV and other diseases.

You don't normally see any authority banning a trade involving fish on cruelty grounds. If the fish spa industry is banned in the UK on cruelty grounds, the UK government should also ban the sale of goldfish bowls.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> Could you answer a question for us though?
> 
> Do you angle for your pleasure, or that of the fish?


Is that a question asking me whether or not I agree with anthropomorphizing fish?

It's a bit stupid if you're suggesting that fish have 'pleasurable' feelings.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> That's your opinion. I provided the fact that I fish for sport to deliver a more balanced argument so people won't think I'm some kind of left-wing, animal-rights junkie.
> 
> Do I think angling is cruel? No. Why? Because it's a simple fact that if a fish simply can't interpret painful stimuli in their mouthparts, it can't be 'suffering' from 'cruelty' when it's hooked.


Any thing that pierces a fish skin in their mouth is cruel, they too didn't ask to be hooked, I rest my case on this one Luke. fishing sport is no different.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Chillinator said:


> As I've said, a hook causes no pain, I can provide valid and in-date evidence for this. The brain of a fish simply isn't developed enough to interpret adverse stimuli as pain.


Maybe they havent a developed enough brain to care about the pedicure situation then either.  bit like a fish tank life


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Any thing that pierces a fish skin in their mouth is cruel, they too didn't ask to be hooked, I rest my case on this one Luke. fishing sport is no different.


I suppose you would also say the same about forms of angling that don't use hooks? Such as angling for Sailfish?

A hook does absolutely no physical harm to a fish. They don't show emotions such as fear or pleasure. A fish reacts on instinct.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> Is that a question asking me whether or not I agree with anthropomorphizing fish?
> 
> It's a bit stupid if you're suggesting that fish have 'pleasurable' feelings.


Interesting that you won't answer the question as to whether or not you angle for your own pleasure or that of the fish.

Especially as you were the one who claimed that fish can appreciate a better quality of life.



Chillinator said:


> The two can't be compared, a fish in an expansive lake that's occasionally caught using a hook and line has a much higher quality of life than a single _Garra rufa_ in an overcrowded fish spa tank.


So...are you now saying a fish has 'no feelings'? If so, what would they care if they are hooked, tanked or swimming free?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> These states have banned fish spas primarily because of health risks associated with them, including the transmission of pathogenic bacteria, HIV and other diseases.
> 
> You don't normally see any authority banning a trade involving fish on cruelty grounds. If the fish spa industry is banned in the UK on cruelty grounds, the UK government should also ban the sale of goldfish bowls.


I did actually know that the ban was in place because of the health risks associated with the fish spas! I asked the question just to see if anyone replied with the reason - and if so if those people were in favour of these pedicures dispite the potential risks!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Chillinator said:


> They don't show emotions such as fear or pleasure. A fish reacts on instinct.


lol enough said right there


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> Interesting that you won't answer the question as to whether or not you angle for your own pleasure or that of the fish.
> 
> Especially as you were the one who claimed that fish can appreciate a better quality of life.
> 
> So...are you now saying a fish has 'no feelings'? If so, what would they care if they are hooked, tanked or swimming free?


I think what was being said is that the fish in the lake have a far better quality of life then those in a tank , as do the chickens that are free range over those that are battery farmed!


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> I suppose you would also say the same about forms of angling that don't use hooks? Such as angling for Sailfish?
> 
> A hook does absolutely no physical harm to a fish. They don't show emotions such as fear or pleasure. A fish reacts on instinct.


ANY form of fishing that uses hooks etc for catching fish is cruel, anything that is used to hook the skin is cruel,,,, so for me it works the same with the garra fish, our feet dont do any harm to the fish either, and they come to our feet we dont force them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> ANY form of fishing that uses hooks etc for catching fish is cruel, anything that is used to hook the skin is cruel,,,, so for me it works the same with the garra fish, our feet dont do any harm to the fish either, and they come to our feet we dont force them.


So they choose to live in little tanks too then?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> Interesting that you won't answer the question as to whether or not you angle for your own pleasure or that of the fish.
> 
> Especially as you were the one who claimed that fish can appreciate a better quality of life.
> 
> So...are you now saying a fish has 'no feelings'? If so, what would they care if they are hooked, tanked or swimming free?


Fish suffer, not psychologically, but physically. A fish doesn't 'care' as such, however fish _can_ feel pain in other parts of their bodies away from the mouthparts as they still have nervous systems.

Fish reguarly root around in sharp substrates (such as on a river bottom) in the search for food which results in damage to their mouths. However they show no physical reaction (a reflex action) to these injuries that we would think are 'painful' and the fish continue to root around and feed.

Poor water quality in fish spa tanks causes all sorts of physical problems. High ammonia causes disturbances in osmoregulation, making the skin of a fish more permeable to water. Ammonia reduces the oxygen-carrying ability of the bloodstream, resulting in a condition called gill hyperplasia - further reducing oxygen uptake. A lack of oxygen in turn results in damage to internal organs (in particular, the heart) and the central nervous system.

The final result: a painful death.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> I think what was being said is that the fish in the lake have a far better quality of life then those in a tank , as do the chickens that are free range over those that are battery farmed!


I appreciate that DT, but surely that quality of life would be improved if the fish weren't baited and hooked too?

It seems perplexing that a person would happily bait and hook a garra ruffa without any remorse yet complains if the same animals will live a life free of ever being hooked.

He objects to one, yet supports the other purely down to his own hobbies/interests and personal likes. That is not objective.

I see a great future for Luke in the world of politics.

 

P.S. Meant nicely Luke...hope you appreciate the joke.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator, as I said in my PM to you - hey, thanks for answering my question. I think you were reading my post in a tone that wasn't meant. There was no sarcasm or any other malice intended.

The other thing I meant to say is - if there the fish living 'wild' don't need dead skin, then why were they chomping on mine? Oh and there were a tad more than six - my husband and nephew were also there and when we'd stopped disturbing the water, there must have been closer to 50 - although numbers are irrelevant, even one eating dead skin is indicative of something.

And yes, I'd love to see the scientific research that says fish feel no pain. Thanks!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Fluffed said:


> The other thing I meant to say is - if there the fish living 'wild' don't need dead skin, then why were they chomping on mine?


lol instinct


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> lol instinct


But how can it be instinct if they have every they need without my feet? Are you disagreeing with Chillinator and saying that dead skin _is_ part of their diet if they have a choice?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> I appreciate that DT, but surely that quality of life would be improved if the fish weren't baited and hooked too?
> 
> It seems perplexing that a person would happily bait and hook a garra ruffa without any remorse yet complains if the same animals will live a life free of ever being hooked.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not brave enough for politics; and I doubt I'd be very popular... :lol:

I don't just fish for sport (and my apparent 'pleasure'), I fish because it gives me the opportunity to help in conserving our natural waterways. I regularly pick up litter (including plastic can holders which can be detrimental to birds) that's left behind by other people such as hikers.

Fish spas do nothing for the environment, they simply bring fish inside and send them to their deaths - deliberately.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> The other thing I meant to say is - if there the fish living 'wild' don't need dead skin, then why were they chomping on mine? Oh and there were a tad more than six - my husband and nephew were also there and when we'd stopped disturbing the water, there must have been closer to 50 - although numbers are irrelevant, even one eating dead skin is indicative of something.


A few dozen fish out of several hundred, or even thousands of fish, doesn't indicate that any natural behaviour is going on. All species of shoaling fish form a hierarchy, the weakest individuals are often forced to scavenge which causes these instincts to 'switch on'. Going by the photo you provided, I doubt there is much natural food in the lake given the type of bottom (coarse pebbles) and the clarity of the water.

And as for the evidence that fish do not feel pain, here is a valid article from a well respected source: Dr James D. Rose.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Also, I'd like to clarify: when I mention the term 'stress', I'm referring to physical stress.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Fluffed said:


> But how can it be instinct if they have every they need without my feet? Are you disagreeing with Chillinator and saying that dead skin _is_ part of their diet if they have a choice?


yep   maybe bodies float in the sea for a reason :w00t:

also was kidding


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> No, I'm not brave enough for politics; and I doubt I'd be very popular... :lol:


You only have to be slightly more popular than your opponent, and in the current political climate, that's not very difficult. LOL



Chillinator said:


> I don't just fish for sport (and my apparent 'pleasure'), I fish because it gives me the opportunity to help in conserving our natural waterways. I regularly pick up litter (including plastic can holders which can be detrimental to birds) that's left behind by other people such as hikers.
> 
> Fish spas do nothing for the environment, they simply bring fish inside and send them to their deaths - deliberately.


Would it possible to help conserve the natural waterways without hooking fish? Are there other methods that would be more effective and timely? 

I like how you, as an angler, blame the plastic can holders on the hikers LOL. Are you sure you don't read either The Guardian or The Daily Mail? Both have similar ways of thinking, however, at opposite sides of the political spectrum.

And to finish, I cannot resist playing Devil's advocate. You say that fish spa's do nothing for the environment, but have you thought about this:

The spa owner makes revenue from selling the fish spas, which in turn generates tax revenue for the government which the government then uses to invest in programmes to clean up our natural waterways?

It seems perverse, but it's true.


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

sitting on the fence with this one .... up to each and everyone of you what you believe , if i would have one or not im saying


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> A few dozen fish out of several hundred, or even thousands of fish, doesn't indicate that any natural behaviour is going on. All species of fish form a hierarchy, the weakest individuals are often forced to scavenge which causes these instincts to 'switch on'. Going by the photo you provided, I doubt there is much natural food in the lake.


 How on earth can you tell? The photos only show a tiny section of the pool and, as I mentioned, there was plenty of plantlife.

So now you're saying that the fish were feeding on our skin out of desperation? Hmmmm.......... Oh, and maybe there would have been far, far more fish feeding on feet if there were more feet - there's only so much surface area of skin on three pairs of feet you know.



> And as for the evidence that fish do not feel pain, here is a valid article from a well respected source: Dr James D. Rose.


Thank you.

What about the articles published in 2003 and then in 2009 that indicate fish do indeed feel pain?

"Double check

The mere presence of nociception in an animal is not enough to prove that it feels pain, because its reaction may be a reflex.

Proof requires demonstrating that the animal's behaviour is adversely affected by a potentially painful experience, and that these behavioural changes are not simple reflex responses.

Hurt trout behaved differently
So the researchers injected bee venom or acetic acid into the lips of some of the trout, with control groups receiving saline solution injections or simply being handled.

All the fish had been conditioned to feed at a ring in their tank, where they were collected for handling or injection.

Dr Sneddon said: "Anomalous behaviours were exhibited by trout subjected to bee venom and acetic acid.

Different development

"Fish demonstrated a 'rocking' motion, strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals.

"The trout injected with the acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in their tank and on the tank walls. These do not appear to be reflex responses."

The fish injected with venom and acid also took almost three times longer to resume feeding than the control groups.

Dr Sneddon said the team's work "fulfils the criteria for animal pain"."

From: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fish do feel pain, scientists say

And: -

Fish May Actually Feel Pain And React To It Much Like Humans Do

And how do you explain the penultimate paragraph in your link? Just because a fish can't experience pain in the same way a human can, it can and will experience stress.

"Although fish dont have the capacity to experience human-like pain or suffering, their reactions to nociceptive stimuli or capture are still important because these *reactions include the secretion of stress hormones*. These stress hormones can have undesirable health effects on fish if they are secreted in large amounts over a long period of time. So, its important when practicing catch-and-release fishing to observe the usually recommended procedures of landing a fish before it is exhausted and returning it to the water quickly."


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> And as for the evidence that fish do not feel pain, here is a valid article from a well respected source: Dr James D. Rose.


And yet The Royal Society (an entire group of respected experts, not just one man) did research and found that fish do indeed feel pain (just as all living things do), and are actually more sensitive than humans around the mouth area!

- Do Fish Feel Pain? The science behind whether Fish Feel Pain

What do you think? Worth considering?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> Would it possible to help conserve the natural waterways without hooking fish? Are there other methods that would be more effective and timely?
> 
> I like how you, as an angler, blame the plastic can holders on the hikers LOL. Are you sure you don't read either The Guardian or The Daily Mail? Both have similar ways of thinking, however, at opposite sides of the political spectrum.
> 
> ...


I mentioned '*such as* hikers', I'm not blaming hikers as the only culprits for littering - other people such as canoeists, cyclists and campers are equally as guilty. Most responsible anglers pick up and dipose of any litter they accidentally drop.

A small amount of the cash that is collected by the government as tax _does_ go to the Environment Agency. However, the EA has been criticized for just how much work it does in helping to protect natural lakes, rivers and the land surrounding them. Large portions of the money go on nothing more than useless paperwork.

What happens as a result is angling associations and federations organizing cleaning days to visit lakes and rivers to clean up waste, obtain water samples which can be tested privately in a lab and tackle overgrowing vegetation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> How on earth can you tell? The photos only show a tiny section of the pool and, as I mentioned, there was plenty of plantlife.
> 
> So now you're saying that the fish were feeding on our skin out of desperation? Hmmmm.......... Oh, and maybe there would have been far, far more fish feeding on feet if there were more feet - there's only so much surface area of skin on three pairs of feet you know.
> 
> ...


Dr Lynne Sneddon was ridiculed for her use of bee venom in her research to form an assumption that 'fish feel pain'. No proof was ever obtained to show that the negative stimuli being exhbited by the fish was pain.

Her research was also criticized because of suspected links to PETA.

As for the research by Joseph Garner, again the research was found to be 'inconclusive' that fish actually have the ability to feel pain - in their mouthparts.

These long term 'stress' effects are physical, not psychological. In the space of a a minute or so (the average length of time it takes to release a fish), only small amounts of these 'stress hormones' will be released and they certainly won't be released in amounts or for the length of time needed before they start affecting the health of a fish. Fish recover from being hooked and released within a few minutes and are seen behaving and feeding again shortly after.


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

thank you tanya for re opening my thread i think we will all have to agree to disagree on this one and actually my opening words on the thread were ' have you tried it and did you like it'


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Dr Lynne Sneddon was ridiculed for her use of bee venom in her research to form an assumption that 'fish feel pain'. No proof was ever obtained to show that the negative stimuli being exhbited by the fish was pain.
> 
> Her research was also criticized because of suspected links to PETA.
> 
> ...


I appreciate you taking the time to explain all of this.

Did you read the articles, as a matter of interest? How do you explain the continuing cautious behaviour demonstrated by fish after receiving a placebo in place of morphine and then exposed to a 'painful' environment?

Just because the stress effect is physical, does it make it any less valid for concern?

As for fish recovering - do they not 'learn' to avoid hooks? And if caught several times that stress factor, according to the research and as you agree, causes long term harm. Are none of these factors worth considering?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to explain all of this.
> 
> Did you read the articles, as a matter of interest? How do you explain the continuing cautious behaviour demonstrated by fish after receiving a placebo in place of morphine and then exposed to a 'painful' environment?
> 
> ...


I read the articles when they were first published, courtesy to my uncle (a senior lecturer of marine biology at the University of California) who has access to scientific journals.

The thing is, how do you define 'cautious' behaviour? It's difficult to describe in words, I think more research needs to be carried out - by unbiased people. I will admit that perhaps Dr James D Rose appears to be somewhat biased, but his research is more balanced than what's been provided by the 'for pain' lobby.

As fish are caught over and over again, they do seem to become able to differentiate natural from unnatural food. However, they still take down brightly-coloured lures that look nothing like natural food without any hesitation. Some fish take a hook out of sheer aggression, thanks to predatory instincts. In freshwater lakes, 'resident' fish that are known to have been caught in the past (thanks to tagging) are often seen chasing and taking a moving bait through the water and taking it feet from the bank, even when the fish can clearly see the angler on the bank.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> I read the articles when they were first published, courtesy to my uncle (a senior lecturer of marine biology at the University of California) who has access to scientific journals.
> 
> The thing is, how do you define 'cautious' behaviour? It's difficult to describe in words, I think more research needs to be carried out - by unbiased people. I will admit that perhaps Dr James D Rose appears to be somewhat biased, but his research is more balanced than what's been provided by the 'for pain' lobby.
> 
> As fish are caught over and over again, they do seem to become able to differentiate natural from unnatural food. However, they still take down brightly-coloured lures that look nothing like natural food without any hesitation. Some fish take a hook out of sheer aggression, thanks to predatory instincts.


You read the papers when they were first published?

I may be missing something here Luke, but you're 16 right?

The papers were published back in January 2003. You were 7 or 8 years old.

Did you understand everything they were saying at that age? It seems odd to me that a 7/8 year old makes a decision about something in life and sticks to it forever. Do you still stand by the tooth fairy too? LOL


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> You read the papers when they were first published?
> 
> I may be missing something here Luke, but you're 16 right?
> 
> ...


I was referring to the article published in 2009, not 2003. There have been other research papers published in the past 2-3 years on the subject - and I'm quite capable of reading and understanding them.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> I read the articles when they were first published, courtesy to my uncle (a senior lecturer of marine biology at the University of California) who has access to scientific journals.


Oh I say.



> The thing is, how do you define 'cautious' behaviour? It's difficult to describe in words, I think more research needs to be carried out - by unbiased people. I will admit that perhaps Dr James D Rose appears to be somewhat biased, but his research is more balanced than what's been provided by the 'for pain' lobby.


The cautious behaviour is elicited in the articles by comparing the fish that were given a placebo to those fish that were given morphine and exposed to the same stimuli.

"However, the fish that had been on morphine later went on about business as if nothing had happened. The fish that had gotten the saline were wary after the test.

"They acted with defensive behaviors, indicating wariness, or fear and anxiety," said Joseph Garner, an assistant professor at Purdue University.

"The experiment shows that fish do not only respond to painful stimuli with reflexes, but change their behavior also after the event," said Janicke Nordgreen, a doctoral student in the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science. "Together with what we know from experiments carried out by other groups, this indicates that the fish consciously perceive the test situation as painful and switch to behaviors indicative of having been through an aversive experience.""



> As fish are caught over and over again, they do seem to become able to differentiate natural from unnatural food. However, they still take down brightly-coloured lures that look nothing like natural food without any hesitation. Some fish take a hook out of sheer aggression, thanks to predatory instincts.


That's interesting. I need to try to find out more about that.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

classixuk said:


> You read the papers when they were first published?
> 
> I may be missing something here Luke, but you're 16 right?
> 
> ...


Ah. So you were 13 when you read the papers. Ok.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> The cautious behaviour is elicited in the articles by comparing the fish that were given a placebo to those fish that were given morphine and exposed to the same stimuli.
> 
> "However, the fish that had been on morphine later went on about business as if nothing had happened. The fish that had gotten the saline were wary after the test.
> 
> ...


Fear and anxiety to what though? Sudden movement? Flashing lights? Sound?

I'd take a look on some of the fly fishing forums that are scattered around the net.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Fear and anxiety to what though? Sudden movement? Flashing lights? Sound?


 To their usual environment - maybe you need to reread the articles. 



> I'd take a look on some of the fly fishing forums that are scattered around the net.


Gosh! I think I'd rather read unbiased research actually


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> I'd take a look on some of the fly fishing forums that are scattered around the net.


Hmmnnn...Luke, do you see why that is not such a good suggestion? Fly-Fishers have what's known as a 'vested interest'.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Is there some kind of problem with the fact that I read scientific papers at a young age? Going by one or two of the rather sarcastic comments on here I think people do have a problem!


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> Fly-Fishers have what's known as a 'vested interest'.


Meaning? Fly anglers are quite approachable, not elitist snobs.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Is there some kind of problem with the fact that I read scientific papers at a young age? Going by one or two of the rather sarcastic comments on here I think people do have a problem!


No sarcasm from me! Are you being a tad oversensitive?



Chillinator said:


> Meaning? Fly anglers are quite approachable, not elitist snobs.


But they are also biased 

Oh, by the way, did you miss my last descriptions about the fish in the pool? They put a different light on what you were suggesting.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> To their usual environment - maybe you need to reread the articles.
> 
> Gosh! I think I'd rather read unbiased research actually


But what in their 'usual' environments are they reacting to? 

You can use fly fishing forums as a source of anglers' experiences - experiences aren't based upon biased opinions. As an angler, I've seen large, 'resident' fish coming in very close to the bank and uncautiously taking my fly even with me standing on the bank in clear view of any fish swimming underneath my feet.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> No sarcasm from me! Are you being a tad oversensitive?
> 
> But they are also biased
> 
> Oh, by the way, did you miss my last descriptions about the fish in the pool? They put a different light on what you were suggesting.


I was referring to Classix's rather sarcastic comments.

As I said, experiences are not biased.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> Is there some kind of problem with the fact that I read scientific papers at a young age? Going by one or two of the rather sarcastic comments on here I think people do have a problem!


Hmmnn...not that so much as you sticking by things you discovered at 13 and not exploring other viewpoints now you've matured / grown etc.

It's only natural that the longer you're alive, the more chances you'll have to discover new things. Does that make sense?



Chillinator said:


> Meaning? Fly anglers are quite approachable, not elitist snobs.


The pope is approachable too (I am sure), but I wouldn't ask him for un-biased evidence around the subject of something like abortion.

You yourself criticised the validity of research due to a potential link to PETA, yet then go on to advise that others who wish to know if "fish feel pain" begin their research on a forum full of fishermen?

Don't you see the irony?


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> So they choose to live in little tanks too then?


No fish ask to be put into tanks or bowls in the home.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> But what in their 'usual' environments are they reacting to?


I think it was everything. If you read the article, you'll see the fish that were given a placebo acted quite differently to how they had been before the experiment, and also differently to the morphine fish who were acting the same as they were before.



> *You can use fly fishing forums as a source of anglers' experiences - experiences aren't based upon biased opinions*. As an angler, I've seen large, 'resident' fish coming in very close to the bank and uncautiously taking my fly even with me standing on the bank in clear view of any fish swimming underneath my feet.


Can you not see the contradiction in this?



Chillinator said:


> I was referring to Classix's rather sarcastic comments.


Oh right, I can't tell that they're sarcastic.



> As I said, experiences are not biased.


I, and scientific study, thinks they are actually.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> Oh, by the way, did you miss my last descriptions about the fish in the pool? They put a different light on what you were suggesting.


Yes, and I've also had another close look at the photo of the pool. I can describe several of its features:

1) It's quite shallow.

2) There's no vegetation surrounding the pool which would provide shelter for terrestrial insects - an important food source.

3) The water is very clear.

4) A coarse, pebble substrate won't harbour much in the way of aquatic invertebrates.

5) I can see very little signs of any aquatic vegetation - and I can quite easily discern the bottom of the pool!

All in all, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of natural food available.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> I think it was everything. If you read the article, you'll see the fish that were given a placebo acted quite differently to how they had been before the experiment, and also differently to the morphine fish who were acting the same as they were before.
> 
> Can you not see the contradiction in this?
> 
> ...


Anglers will tell you what they've seen (or in other words, their experiences) - are you implying they're liars? You won't find much information from scientific sources on the behaviour of fish as they chase an angler's bait through the water!

Classix's comments were clearly sarcastic, but seeing as you both hold the same opinions obviously you see that they weren't.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> No sarcasm from me! Are you being a tad oversensitive?
> 
> But they are also biased
> 
> Oh, by the way, did you miss my last descriptions about the fish in the pool? They put a different light on what you were suggesting.





Chillinator said:


> Yes, and I've also had another close look at the photo of the pool. I can describe several of its features:
> 
> 1) It's quite shallow.


 It shelved to a depth where it came over my husband's head by about a foot - he's 6ft 3 inches.



> 2) There's no vegetation surrounding the pool which would provide shelter for terrestrial insects - an important food source.


There was lots of plant life at the other end of the pool. As I have already said. Which is one of the reasons why we weren't sitting there.



> 3) The water is very clear.


In that part.



> 4) A coarse, pebble substrate won't harbour much in the way of aquatic invertebrates.


In that part.



> 5) I can see very little signs of any aquatic vegetation - and I can quite easily discern the bottom of the pool!
> 
> All in all, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of natural food available.


You obviously missed my last descriptions of all the plant life and algae in other areas of the pool. Do you think the hundreds, thousands (in your words) of fish that were living in that pond were having to wait for people to come by to put their feet in it so they got something to eat?

Those pools are in Oman, we were probably the first people to stick our feet in that water for months, if not over a year. I suspect those fish were living on something.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Anglers will tell you what they've seen (or in other words, their experiences) - are you implying they're liars? You won't find much information from scientific sources on the behaviour of fish as they chase an angler's bait through the water!


No, I'm *saying *(no implication) that anglers, just like everyone else when asked to comment on something they enjoy doing, will view it with a bias. Scientists don't. That's the point.



> Classix's comments were clearly sarcastic, but seeing as you both hold the same opinions obviously you see that they weren't.


Please don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> Hmmnn...not that so much as you sticking by things you discovered at 13 and not exploring other viewpoints now you've matured / grown etc.
> 
> It's only natural that the longer you're alive, the more chances you'll have to discover new things. Does that make sense?
> 
> ...


The hypocrisy on this forum is hilarious! While I'm more or less being branded as narrow-minded, other people are putting their own opinions across and failing to realize that they themselves haven't explored other viewpoints! I do observe other viewpoints and unlike most on this thread, I've provided unbiased evidence from reliable sources and tried to pursue this debate without resorting to making sarcastic cracks or irrelevant references about how old people are.

I suggested asking on a fly fishing forum for experiences from anglers of what they've seen in lakes where fish behaviour is concerned - it was to address Fluffed's question on 'fish recovery' after being caught and released. I did not recommend visiting a fly fishing forum to obtain an angler's opinion on whether or not fish feel pain.

I'm not asking for a lecture, when it is quite clear that people don't have a damn clue about how a fish even functions, let alone understanding the literature in articles explaining whether or not they can feel pain.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Fluffed said:


> But how can it be instinct if they have every they need without my feet? Are you disagreeing with Chillinator and saying that dead skin _is_ part of their diet if they have a choice?


They scavenge and will eat anything that was put there. so if there is nothing in the tank at the time other than feet then they will suss out the dead skin. natural instinct.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> No, I'm *saying *(no implication) that anglers, just like everyone else when asked to comment on something they enjoy doing, will view it with a bias. Scientists don't. That's the point.


Scientists are not immune from bias, Dr Lynne Sneddon was suspected of links to PETA after they provided her with a platform for research.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

cannot believe there are pages upon pages upon pages debating fish munching on peeps crusty dried up skin on skanky feet

why not just get one of these










And get rid of the skin with a bit of hand back and fro action?

Apply some nice moisturising cream , job done!


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth.


Weird, as from where I'm sitting, you've put your own words in your own mouth... 



Fluffed said:


> Oh right, I can't tell that they're sarcastic.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> The hypocrisy on this forum is hilarious! While I'm more or less being branded as narrow-minded, other people are putting their own opinions across and failing to realize that they themselves haven't explored other viewpoints! I do observe other viewpoints and unlike most on this thread, I've provided unbiased evidence from reliable sources and tried to pursue this debate without resorting to making sarcastic cracks about how old people are.
> 
> I suggested asking on a fly fishing forum for experiences from anglers of what they've seen in lakes where fish behaviour is concerned - it was to address Fluffed's question on 'fish recovery' after being caught and released. I did not recommend visiting a fly fishing forum to obtain an angler's opinion on whether or not fish feel pain.
> 
> I'm not asking for a lecture, when it is quite clear that people don't have a damn clue about how a fish even functions, let alone understanding the literature in articles explaining whether or not they can feel pain.


Of course fish feel pain, why do they hit a freshly caught fish over the head with a heavy instrument, its to kill it instantly so it do NOT suffer. Suffer = means pain.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> No, I'm *saying *(no implication) that anglers, just like everyone else when asked to comment on something they enjoy doing, will view it with a bias. Scientists don't. That's the point.


You're failing to realize that I'm not suggesting asking an angler for an opinion on what they enjoy doing or for their opinion on whether or not they think fish feel pain.

You asked earlier in this thread if fish 'learn' to become wary of hooks over time. I answered that you could ask any angler - with no mention or reference whatsoever in your question to the 'fish feel pain' argument - for an answer based on first-hand experience on whether or not this particular angler has seen fish suddenly shy away from artificial baits such as lures or flies, indicating if perhaps fish do 'wise-up' to hooks and learn to avoid them.


----------



## Fluffed (Jun 5, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> The hypocrisy on this forum is hilarious! While I'm more or less being branded as narrow-minded, other people are putting their own opinions across and failing to realize that they themselves haven't explored other viewpoints! I do observe other viewpoints and unlike most on this thread, I've provided unbiased evidence from reliable sources and tried to pursue this debate without resorting to making sarcastic cracks or irrelevant references about how old people are.


Age is extremely relevant as you are demonstrating.



> I suggested asking on a fly fishing forum for experiences from anglers of what they've seen in lakes where fish behaviour is concerned - it was to address Fluffed's question on 'fish recovery' after being caught and released. I did not recommend visiting a fly fishing forum to obtain an angler's opinion on whether or not fish feel pain.


No, you didn't read my post. I was wondering about fish learning to avoid bait/lures.



> I'm not asking for a lecture, when it is quite clear that people don't have a damn clue about how a fish even functions, let alone understanding the literature in articles explaining whether or not they can feel pain.


Ok, that's an insult. Pretty childish.



Chillinator said:


> Scientists are not immune from bias, Dr Lynne Sneddon was suspected of links to PETA after they provided her with a platform for research.


Suspected is not proof. Who's to say those with a vested interest didn't start that rumour?



Chillinator said:


> Weird, as from where I'm sitting, you've put your own words in your own mouth...


Eh? I didn't see any sarcasm! You are accusing me of not seeing it because I agree with the person you accuse of using it. That's a bit of a stretch.

Ok, look you're obviously pretty entrenched in your position, which is fine, but means there's no point in discussing this further, especially as you're getting upset now.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Of course fish feel pain, why do they hit a freshly caught fish over the head with a heavy instrument, its to kill it instantly so it do NOT suffer. Suffer = means pain.


How would you expect an angler to kill a fish? Stabbing it several times with a knife (*for example*) would give angling a very bad image to the wider public. Commercial fishermen don't even go this far to despatch their fish, they simply suffocate in a ship's hold.

A single whack over the head causes the fish to lose conciousness and it allows the angler to despatch the fish quietly, quickly and effectively.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> The hypocrisy on this forum is hilarious! While I'm more or less being branded as narrow-minded, other people are putting their own opinions across and failing to realize that they themselves haven't explored other viewpoints! I do observe other viewpoints and unlike most on this thread, I've provided unbiased evidence from reliable sources and tried to pursue this debate without resorting to making sarcastic cracks about how old people are.
> 
> I suggested asking on a fly fishing forum for experiences from anglers of what they've seen in lakes where fish behaviour is concerned - it was to address Fluffed's question on 'fish recovery' after being caught and released. I did not recommend visiting a fly fishing forum to obtain an angler's opinion on whether or not fish feel pain.
> 
> I'm not asking for a lecture, when it is quite clear that people don't have a damn clue about how a fish even functions, let alone understanding the literature in articles explaining whether or not they can feel pain.


Do I have to wear a big pointy hat with a D on it too? When can I come out from the corner Sir?



I can't believe you talk of hypocrisy, yet staunchly defend your right to put hooks into a fishes mouth whilst criticizing those who put their feet into a tank.

The only reason you put hooks into a fishes mouth is because you LIKE doing it. What benefit is it to any fish on this earth for you to put a hook into it's mouth?

It's all very well and good grasping onto a small amount of research that says fish don't feel pain (conveniently for anglers, they are only 'numb' in their mouths according to the research you stand by) whilst also rubbishing ANY research that suggests the opposite, but you have to do this as you have a vested interest Luke. You don't want to accept that the evidence on both sides is 'inconclusive', as it raises too many questions about the morality of your own hobby.

As for me, I have no interest whatsoever in keeping or catching fish, or even having my feet tickled by one. I don't even eat fish...hate the damn stuff. I must be a fishes best friend - there is absolutely no threat of being eaten, forced into unpaid employment, capture or hooking by me. LOL

What I do like though is beef. I love burgers, steaks and everything. That's why you'd never see me jumping around on a forum thread about the 'quality of life of a cow'. Who am I to judge when my favourite hobby is discovering new recipes to do with murdered cows?

Over and Out.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> How would you expect an angler to kill a fish? Stabbing it several times with a knife (*for example*) would give angling a very bad image to the wider public. Commercial fishermen don't even go this far to despatch their fish, they simply suffocate in a ship's hold.
> 
> A single whack over the head causes the fish to lose conciousness and it allows the angler to despatch the fish quietly, quickly and effectively.


So if they dont hit it hard enough to render it unconscious that would mean that fish would suffer out of water and become stressed and thrash about. Sounds like suffering to me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Fluffed said:


> Age is extremely relevant as you are demonstrating.
> 
> No, you didn't read my post. I was wondering about fish learning to avoid bait/lures.
> 
> ...


How is age relevant? Is it relevant because it gives some members on here a weapon to use in arguments?

*You asked me whether or not a fish can learn to avoid hooks. I clearly pointed out that any angler angler will tell you if a fish can suddenly become cautious to unnatural bait/hooks after being caught over and over again. *

As well as the 'suspcicion', it was well documented Dr Sneddon is a political ally of PETA, given her own views (as well as a string of disparaging comments towards the angling world) on the matter outside of the research.

You're damn right I'm entrenched in my position, but the same can be said for yourself and everyone else who's simply fighting their corner in this argument.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> So if they dont hit it hard enough to render it unconscious that would mean that fish would suffer out of water and become stressed and thrash about. Sounds like suffering to me.


One sharp tap between the eyes is all it takes. It's not a difficult task to do it in the first attempt.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> One sharp tap between the eyes is all it takes. It's not a difficult task to do it in the first attempt.


Why? If they dont feel pain and not suffer why not just let them wriggle and thrash around.??


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

classixuk said:


> Do I have to wear a big pointy hat with a D on it too? When can I come out from the corner Sir?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


People like yourself are immediately believing the research you read, without properly understanding it or interpreting it properly. I can see it a mile away, I'm not stupid. The fact is, we're all hypocrites here.

As I've said, anglers don't deliberately _kill_ fish like fish spas do for the sake of allowing some random member of the public to have their feet pedicured. If only you knew what went on behind the scenes in a fish spa. In case you didn't know, there's a difference between a 'need' and a 'want'. A trout in a lake at least has a fair enough chance for survival and they can thrive for several years under pressure from anglers - a _Garra rufa_ is a dead fish within a couple of weeks.

I've been disagreeing the research, but I've been showing that the research has been blasted by others (these include several people in scientific fields!) for its bias and poor conclusions. I don't agree or disagree without FACTS.

Anyway, I've got a life to live. I'd love to sit here and argue all day, but to be perfectly honest, I can't give a rat's ass anymore. I've stood my corner several times on threads relating to fish spas and in the process I've been insulted, branded a hypocrite, received written abuse from members, criticized because of my age and of course the creme de la creme: criticized for voicing my opinion.

As you said, over and out.


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

coming from me, who worked in the aquatics trade this is a herendously cruel thing.

these fish are supposed to grow to 5 inches, how are they supposed to do this crammed in to these small tanks? These fish are naturally herbivours and it is thought that to make them nibble at the skin they are underfed, they also thought to be reccomended by manufasturers to under feed to stop as much waste as these pedicure tanks are herendously over stocked (causing amonia poisining and no doubt many fish deaths)

Not to mention the potential spread of fish TB which is a disease that can be passed to humans, usually through small cuts somewere on the feet


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Why? If they dont feel pain and not suffer why not just let them wriggle and thrash around.??


Ask a marine biologist that question, and then get back to me.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

For what it's worth, whilst I don't agree with the spas I also don't agree with angling, eating them, or 98% of the ethics in the pet aquatics trade.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> People like yourself are immediately believing the research you read, without properly understanding it or interpreting it properly. I can see it a mile away, I'm not stupid. The fact is, we're all hypocrites here.
> 
> As I've said, anglers don't deliberately _kill_ fish like fish spas do for the sake of allowing some random member of the public to have their feet pedicured. If only you knew what went on behind the scenes in a fish spa. In case you didn't know, there's a difference between a 'need' and a 'want'. A trout in a lake at least has a fair enough chance for survival and they can thrive for several years under pressure from anglers - a _Garra rufa_ is a dead fish within a couple of weeks.
> 
> ...


Oh course you couldn't give a rats arse. Nothing anyone is going to tell me about a fish not feeling any pain etc is going to make me change my mind, Fish DO feel pain they are living creatures, the thrashing around proves they are suffering or they would just lay there motionless.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

jenniferx said:


> For what it's worth, whilst I don't agree with the spas I also don't agree with angling, eating them, or 98% of the ethics in the pet aquatics trade.


For what it's worth: I've had enough of arguing.

What's the point? Nobody listens to reason or sticks on-topic.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> Ask a marine biologist that question, and then get back to me.


Why would I feel the need to do that, fish live and breath (yes underwater), they do feel pain and do suffer.


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Do fish not feel pain then???


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Why would I feel the need to do that, fish live and breath (yes underwater), they do feel pain and do suffer.


That's your own belief and assumption. Either way, it doesn't matter, I'm out of ammo.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Tanya1989 said:


> Do fish not feel pain then???


Just ask everyone else.


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Chillinator said:


> Just ask everyone else.


My question was aimed at everyone :blink:


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Tanya1989 said:


> Do fish not feel pain then???


Yes they do Tanya, but some think otherwise.


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

Honestly, this is starting to look like the usual bullying by the usual suspects. I'm not surprised Luke is being defensive when has you all on his back!

There is only one comparison with regards to angling and fish pedicures... and that's the fact that fish are involved in each. Everything else is so far from similar it's unreal!

How can you compare a fish that swims free in a lake or river, to one kept in a tiny tank with dozens of others? 

Can any of you arguing the toss about angling find proof of a Garra fish that has been working in the foot spa industry that has reached it's natural age or beyond?

I've just googled and see that the age is between 4 and 7 when kept in a tank (without feet being dunked in), not sure on the natural life span in the wild maybe Luke can find that info?

This is just getting daft!

Fluffed ~ Unless those fish that came to your feet were held captive and starved by under water fish cops , I also don't see how you can compare the two either. It was their choice to come to your feet. Whether this was because of natural food shortage in the lake or not who knows (you certainly don't) ... but the fact remains there was no human intervention there so there really is no comparison either.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Sorry you feel that way but I wouldn't injure or maim even an invert in the name of sport or entertainment or vanity, whether they are capable of neurological pain/stress responses or not, I just don't like the idea of it full stop. Heck I get upset even when people destroy plants and foilage!


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

Well, I think I shall conclude this arguement that because somthing has scales not fur it therefore, alot of the time, means it is less of a animal and doesn't feel pain despite having definitive scientific evidance that they do as they have a nervour system like any other animal.

Oh and just to finish here is my breeding pair of angels spawning yesterday.Which have a very similar, although captive, habitat and watrer chemistry to what they would have in the wild


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

also, I disagree with how many fish are kept and how many "experts" in shops advise the general public.....us real fish keepers keep fish understocked as above


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Nonnie said:


> Can't say id do it, or even like it, but we do far worse things to animals in this country.


We may do far worse things ... but a greater cruelty should never be used to justify or excuse a lesser one ... :nonod:

In my opinion.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

tillymax said:


> also, I disagree with how many fish are kept and how many "experts" in shops advise the general public.....us real fish keepers keep fish understocked as above


Wow, I love your tank, I love seeing a tank full of beautiful fish with lots of natural foliage, wood & stones around them


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Wow, I love your tank, I love seeing a tank full of beautiful fish with lots of natural foliage, wood & stones around them


thank you, it takes alot of up keep and regular prunning....but its so much better than a plastic boat hehe


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Aurelia said:


> Honestly, this is starting to look like the usual bullying by the usual suspects. I'm not surprised Luke is being defensive when has you all on his back!
> 
> There is only one comparison with regards to angling and fish pedicures... and that's the fact that fish are involved in each. Everything else is so far from similar it's unreal!
> 
> ...


There is a difference between bullying and a debate, but as you mentioned about bullying I think you have been in a few threads were some bullying have happened, I know I havent. 

I dont care what you and luke says....fish have feelings, feel pain and do suffer, he uses hooks and when asked about and questioned by Classixuk about that part it was Luke who was getting heated under the collar., we all have our own opinions and belief's. And I believe they feel pain. 
As for the garra fish in the fish-pedi, unless proved other wise (which they havent over here yet) I dont not believe they are being cruely treated. The waters are tested, filters are in place, UV lightening in place. Forms filled in, Feet checked for open sore, breaks in skin or verucca's etc. your feet are thoroughly washed before putting you feet into the tank. any floating skin will be eaten by the garra fish.


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> I dont not believe they are being cruely treated. The waters are tested, filters are in place, UV lightening in place. Forms filled in, Feet checked for open sore, breaks in skin or verucca's etc. your feet are thoroughly washed before putting you feet into the tank. any floating skin will be eaten by the garra fish.


I pressume you have no idea about stocking levels for fish?To put things in perspective my tank which is posted above is about 90% stocked and there is two angel fish, four female fighters, one ancistrus and four corydoras....thats 11 fish for 130 litres of water!Now the gara fish pedicure tanks are, I would say around 80 litres (although I wouldnt go within a mile of one) have atleast 80 fish in I would say which is god knows what percentage over stocked which is why they live a max of a month in those conditions


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

again, to mention the furry vs's scales thing. If someone crammed a dog in to a cage way smaller than what its adult size needs (fish grow to 5 inches and DO NOT just grow to the size of the tank) there would be up-raw and rspca would be round like a flash


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

well if its a issue with all the sized tanks, why not report all the spars to trading standards...


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

smudge2009 said:


> well if its a issue with all the sized tanks, why not report all the spars to trading standards...


again if its got fur its a upraw....if its got scales rspca, trading standards and such like could not care less


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

tillymax said:


> I pressume you have no idea about stocking levels for fish?To put things in perspective my tank which is posted above is about 90% stocked and there is two angel fish, four female fighters, one ancistrus and four corydoras....thats 11 fish for 130 litres of water!Now the gara fish pedicure tanks are, I would say around 80 litres (although I wouldnt go within a mile of one) have atleast 80 fish in I would say which is god knows what percentage over stocked which is why they live a max of a month in those conditions


NOPE. I have no idea what so ever about fish and stock ??? and dont really want to know and I dont think in any part of this thread I have stated that I know everything about fish. (apart from them feeling pain) I also dont think everyone one knows alot about this fish-pedi and garra fish as it is relativity new over here. I am sure the checks are done or they wouldn't be able to open for business to the public. I feel strongly about my beliefs the same as Luke does and same as other members. good job we are all not the same isnt it


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

smudge2009 said:


> well if its a issue with all the sized tanks, why not report all the* spars* to trading standards...


:lol: I don't think we can start blaming low end supermarkets :lol:

xxxxxx


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

tillymax said:


> again if its got fur its a upraw....if its got scales rspca, trading standards and such like could not care less


Oh but that is where you are wrong, I care about the pain a fish would have, luke says they dont feel pain but I beg to differ. A fish is a living creature. Until there is solid proof that these spars are wrong then I stick with my choice. May be they will be banned soon who knows????? but as long as they are around people are going to try them.


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

tillymax said:


> again if its got fur its a upraw....if its got scales rspca, trading standards and such like could not care less


have u been on the brunt of them ?

trading standards are more through than the rspca plus they are totally seperate business's

i have seen them look at fish tanks

this topic as gone way off topic, yet again like every other debate does .... ive kept off this topic for that reason , i hope it gets shut to be honest ... pathetic


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

Eroswoof said:


> :lol: I don't think we can start blaming low end supermarkets :lol:
> 
> xxxxxx


lmao xxxxx


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> NOPE. I have no idea what so ever about fish and stock ??? and dont really want to know and I dont think in any part of this thread I have stated that I know everything about fish. (apart from them feeling pain) I also dont think everyone one knows alot about this fish-pedi and garra fish as it is relativity new over here. I am sure the checks are done or they wouldn't be able to open for business to the public. I feel strongly about my beliefs the same as Luke does and same as other members. good job we are all not the same isnt it


stocking levels (amount of fish per litre). Well I have a extensive knowledge of fish to say the least ans know that the way these fish IS NOT IN ANY WAY NATURAL OR CORRECT to give them a decent life. Surley you can see that A fishes life span being shortened from around 6 years to less than a month in more cases means somthing isn't right

But hey like all the authorities seem to think "its just a fish" not a amazing creature who can recognise its owner, different food stuffs (my angels know which food container contains there food) and are generally just as much of a pleasurable to keep as my dogs


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

well its pretty obvious to me that the fish are extremely likely to suffer as theyre not kept in anything which remotely mimics their natural environment.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

jenniferx said:


> Sorry you feel that way but I wouldn't injure or maim even an invert in the name of sport or entertainment or vanity, whether they are capable of neurological pain/stress responses or not, I just don't like the idea of it full stop. Heck I get upset even when people destroy plants and foilage!


exactly how i feel!


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> There is a difference between bullying and a debate, but as you mentioned about bullying I think you have been in a few threads were some bullying have happened, I know I havent.


 



xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> I dont care what you and luke says....fish have feelings, feel pain and do suffer, he uses hooks and when asked about and questioned by Classixuk about that part it was Luke who was getting heated under the collar., we all have our own opinions and belief's. And I believe they feel pain.
> As for the garra fish in the fish-pedi, unless proved other wise (which they havent over here yet) I dont not believe they are being cruely treated. The waters are tested, filters are in place, UV lightening in place. Forms filled in, Feet checked for open sore, breaks in skin or verucca's etc. your feet are thoroughly washed before putting you feet into the tank. any floating skin will be eaten by the garra fish.


So you think fish feel pain and are dead against angling? (I believe Luke when he says there is scientific proof that they don't feel pain in their mouths).

So why do you not have a problem with fish suffocating and dying a toxic death then? Or dying because they are not nourished enough and feed mostly on dead skin which has NO nutritional value for them. Which IMO is far far worse.

It's a bit like feeding ducks and baby birds breed. Yes it's food, but it fills their tummies up and so they don't feel hungry enough to eat food which has all the nutrients in it for them to be healthy. Why else do you think the duck poo you see around ponds and the like look so runny?

I'm not a angling fan, but I wouldn't say it's cruel necessarily. Besides that those who fish are part of a huge program that monitors our fish stocks from our rivers and lakes to our seas ... it's because of these people that you might still be able to eat fish and chips in a few years. Without them cod for instance could have become extinct!


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

tillymax said:


> stocking levels (amount of fish per litre). Well I have a extensive knowledge of fish to say the least ans know that the way these fish IS NOT IN ANY WAY NATURAL OR CORRECT to give them a decent life. Surley you can see that A fishes life span being shortened from around 6 years to less than a month in more cases means somthing isn't right
> 
> But hey like all the authorities seem to think "its just a fish" not a amazing creature who can recognise its owner, different food stuffs (my angels know which food container contains there food) and are generally just as much of a pleasurable to keep as my dogs


It is good you know your stuff and you should do if you keep fish. If these fish-pedi salons are over stocking then perhaps one day we will hear about it on new or papers, and it will be banned, but until then people will still try them. this is my point.


----------



## XxZoexX (Sep 8, 2010)

I havent read the whole thread as, well quite frankly i got a little bored 
But i hate anyone touching my feet.. so no i wouldnt have one :lol:


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Aurelia said:


> You are do look confused.
> 
> So you think fish feel pain and are dead against angling? (I believe Luke when he says there is scientific proof that they don't feel pain in their mouths).
> 
> ...


Now did I ever in any part of my posts say I am against angling. No I dont think I have, again you put words into something that havent been mentioned by me. He said fish feel no pain, I said Yes they do. Hooks dig into a fishes mouth and to me that will cause pain. I have said everything about this to Luke so dont feel the need to explain it to you. AND like I said before everyone have thier own opinions on things.

There is no proof that these fish are suffocating in British fishped's (yet) and until I see different my opinions stay the same, and these fish are fed with food other than dead skin. I think this have also been said by others in earlier posts.
You have your veiws and I have mine, UNTIL I see proof with my own eyes then and only then will it change my mind.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> It is good you know your stuff and you should do if you keep fish. If these fish-pedi salons are over stocking then perhaps one day we will hear about it on new or papers, and it will be banned, but until then people will still try them. this is my point.


I think it will be a long time, if ever, that fish welfare is given the same consideration that other species get. I wish it wasn't the case though 

I used to be heavily involved in aquatics but came out of it because I couldn't reconcile it with my ethics. There is so much wrong with the aquatics pet trade alone.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

jenniferx said:


> I think it will be a long time, if ever, that fish welfare is given the same consideration that other species get. I wish it wasn't the case though
> 
> I used to be heavily involved in aquatics but came out of it because I couldn't reconcile it with my ethics. There is so much wrong with the aquatics pet trade alone.


Well as they are totally banned in USA, then having them open up over here our Trading Standards and public may alter it if proof can be shown. You never know. My point is...as long as is it here people will try it out. some like it some dont.


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Now did I ever in any part of my posts say I am against angling. No I dont think I have, again you put words into something that havent been mentioned by me. He said fish feel no pain, I said Yes they do. Hooks dig into a fishes mouth and to me that will cause pain. I have said everything about this to Luke so dont feel the need to explain it to you. AND like I said before everyone have thier own opinions on things.
> 
> There is no proof that these fish are suffocating in British fishped's (yet) and until I see different my opinions stay the same, and these fish are fed with food other than dead skin. I think this have also been said by others in earlier posts.
> You have your veiws and I have mine, UNTIL I see proof with my own eyes then and only then will it change my mind.


Did Luke not provide a link to scientific proof that fish don't feel pain in their mouths? I thought he had,but if not I'm pretty sure it's out there to find .

What more proof do you need on the fish dying in these pedicure places? People have seen the fish dead, and someone in this thread (sorry can't remember who) said they had supplied a fish pedicure place with a lot of fish and they came back for more soon after as there was only a small amount still alive.

Plus the scientific proof is there to say that the environment these fish live in is not good, and they will die because of it.

Your postings did indicate to me that you were against angling. I may have read that wrong, so I apologise. But still there is no more than 1 comparison between the two IMO.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

jenniferx said:


> I think it will be a long time, if ever, that fish welfare is given the same consideration that other species get. I wish it wasn't the case though
> 
> I used to be heavily involved in aquatics but came out of it because I couldn't reconcile it with my ethics. There is so much wrong with the aquatics pet trade alone.


As someone who keeps rats, the RSPCA & a lot of other organisations don't give a damn about them either
I think it's a long time before so many species, furred, feathered & scaled or with more than 4 legs, are given consideration


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Well as they are totally banned in USA, then having them open up over here our Trading Standards and public may alter it if proof can be shown. You never know. My point is...as long as is it here people will try it out. some like it some dont.


But surely, people on this forum whom are clearly experts in keeping fish are telling us WHY it is wrong for these poor fish to be kept in the way they are...

Why do you need to wait to read it in the Sun to decide it is wrong?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

i have seen it and it looks nice, i would definitely have a go at it, i love people playing with my feet so i wouldnt be bothered by it. 

See i have missed a lot since i was away. Well not really it is the same old isnt it on here, bickering, arguing etc.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

Aurelia said:


> Did Luke not provide a link to scientific proof that fish don't feel pain in their mouths? I thought he had,but if not I'm pretty sure it's out there to find .
> 
> What more proof do you need on the fish dying in these pedicure places? People have seen the fish dead, and someone in this thread (sorry can't remember who) said they had supplied a fish pedicure place with a lot of fish and they came back for more soon after as there was only a small amount still alive.
> 
> ...


Scientific proof that fish dont feel pain in their mouth....fish feel pain, I did say this to Luke, why do fishermen have to hit fish over the head to stunn or kill them ? to stop them suffering....suffering = pain......................I think I have already been over this so wont type it all again, 
People have seen dead fish...prob because THAT place is "not" looking after their fish properly we dont know for sure do we. Alot of places have also got good reputaion for cleanlyness and NO dead fish seen, so there are arguements for and against.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> But surely, people on this forum whom are clearly experts in keeping fish are telling us WHY it is wrong for these poor fish to be kept in the way they are...
> 
> Why do you need to wait to read it in the Sun to decide it is wrong?


Because I want to see it and hear it from Experts and 100% proof, not from a member on here who does fishing. If you know what I am meaning. We are only hearing about a few places being bad, but that dont mean other places are the same.....perhaps some dont even bother testing their waters etc, but then again alot prob do.???? we wont ever know for sure. BUT as long as they are over here people are going to try them out.


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

KathrynH said:


> i have seen it and it looks nice, i would definitely have a go at it, i love people playing with my feet so i wouldnt be bothered by it.
> 
> See i have missed a lot since i was away. Well not really it is the same old isnt it on here, bickering, arguing etc.


Cassia(though I think you've no removed your post?) and Kathryn can I ask anhonest question?

Did you read the whole thread before replying? And even after reading about the way these fish suffer did you still come to the same conclusion?

Just curious 



xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Scientific proof that fish dont feel pain in their mouth....fish feel pain, I did say this to Luke, why do fishermen have to hit fish over the head to stunn or kill them ? to stop them suffering....suffering = pain......................I think I have already been over this so wont type it all again,
> People have seen dead fish...prob because THAT place is "not" looking after their fish properly we dont know for sure do we. Alot of places have also got good reputaion for cleanlyness and NO dead fish seen, so there are arguements for and against.


I'm talking about them feeling pain in their mouths, not about being bashed over the head, which is for fish that are caught for human consumption.

If you can find one spa, just 1 that keeps these fish in an environment equal to their requirements then please do. As they would be the only ones with a chance of surviving up to the 4-7 years expected of garra fish kept in a properly equipped aquarium. I don't think you will find one though, the tank they are kept in would have to be massive! It would also have to be one where food fit for the garra fish is seen to be fed and the fish still choose to eat manky feet.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Because I want to see it and hear it from Experts and 100% proof, not from a member on here who does fishing. If you know what I am meaning. We are only hearing about a few places being bad, but that dont mean other places are the same.....perhaps some dont even bother testing their waters etc, but then again alot prob do.???? we wont ever know for sure. BUT as long as they are over here people are going to try them out.


I can see what you are saying and yes people will try them out - not me though - will freak at fish chewing on my plates

However whilst I agree that some fish maybe kept correctly etc,,,,i think I would rather take the advise of a 'expert' on Petforums (whom has no ulterior motive and is totally unbiased) until I hear other wise.

Incidentally a couple of googles have brought up some interesting articles...

I Need Pampering Blog - Fish Pedicure, What's the risk?

Stop Garra Rufa Foot Spa'S - Help Save The Garra Rufa Fish


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Aurelia said:


> Cassia(though I think you've no removed your post?) and Kathryn can I ask anhonest question?
> 
> Did you read the whole thread before replying? And even after reading about the way these fish suffer did you still come to the same conclusion?
> 
> ...


No i did not read the whole thread as it was not a true reflection, this thread has been closed, edited and reopened so what is the point in reading pages and pages that do not make sense.

And yes i do come to the same conclusion however it looks.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> I can see what you are saying and yes people will try them out - not me though - will freak at fish chewing on my plates
> 
> However whilst I agree that some fish maybe kept correctly etc,,,,i think I would rather take the advise of a 'expert' on Petforums (whom has no ulterior motive and is totally unbiased) until I hear other wise.
> 
> ...


I know what you are on about, but I would still like to hear it from proper expterts and not from a petforum member .and that is no disrespect to Luke at all. I understand he knows his stuff, but would still want to hear it from the experts of it all.

I have googled about it and they all bring up different stuff. I havent been to one so dont know what it is like. but as long as they are here like I said people will use them.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

How much is one of these fish eating feet skin spas anyhow?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

gorgeous said:


> How much is one of these fish eating feet skin spas anyhow?


Between £10 and £15 i have seen them.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

KathrynH said:


> Between £10 and £15 i have seen them.


hee hee quite cheap then!


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

gorgeous said:


> hee hee quite cheap then!


Yes it is quite cheap to be honest, not sure how long you get but about 10 mins i think.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

KathrynH said:


> Yes it is quite cheap to be honest, not sure how long you get but about 10 mins i think.


think i would rather spend the money on a nice manicure....think I would feel a bit short changed to spend 15 holes on fish nibbling my plates..


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

I dont like my feet touched so could never put my feet in there, I would be screaming....


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Y'all want to hear it from the experts? Here, educate yourselves...




























P.S. I wouldn't advise ridiculing these sources, as these are the leading authorities on aquatic knowledge. I'm not an expert, but I have been taught well enough in Biology to safely say that I'm telling 100% facts.


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> It is good you know your stuff and you should do if you keep fish. If these fish-pedi salons are over stocking then perhaps one day we will hear about it on new or papers, and it will be banned, but until then people will still try them. this is my point.


true, although it will never happen, there are many things wrong and cruel in the fish industry the main one is goldfish but they never ever get air time and I doubt it ever will because "they are just fish"


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Y'all want to hear it from the experts? Here, educate yourselves...
> P.S. I wouldn't advise ridiculing these sources, as these are the leading authorities on aquatic knowledge. I'm not an expert, but I have been taught well enough in Biology to safely say that I'm telling 100% facts.


Ah this is the source I was looking for, I have this PFK mag but was trying to find the article online. You could not get a more reliable article on the internet, its written by fish keeping legends


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> For what it's worth: I've had enough of arguing.
> 
> What's the point? Nobody listens to reason or sticks on-topic.


but the topic was.....have you ever been to one  not a argument about wether you think it is right or wrong


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> but the topic was.....have you ever been to one  not a argument about wether you think it is right or wrong


Simple answer: Yes. I've been behind the scenes and seen the equipment used, and the holding tanks used to contain the unfortunate arrivals.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

xxwelshcrazyxx said:


> Well as they are totally banned in USA, then having them open up over here our Trading Standards and public may alter it if proof can be shown. You never know. My point is...as long as is it here people will try it out. some like it some dont.


I think (though I could be wrong) that the ban in the USA is associated with the cross infection issue and a more litigious culture over there rather than the way that the fish are kept.

Ultimately the society we are in is not terribly preoccupied with animal welfare when it comes to fish. I mentioned it earlier in the thread.... our pet shops regularly sell fish that have an adult size of 6 feet, a big % of fish are also wild caught (some species are exclusively wild caught), fish are sold that have natural migration patterns, fish are sold that have been dyed (Death By Dyeing - Fish Death By Dyeing), fish that struggle to survive in captivity are caught and sold ... etc... I could go on all day and it's so sad.

This is just for the pet trade, you'd think that people would care more but they just don't.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Ive not tired it because I think its cruel and I dont like my feet touching anyway...... I cant see that its very hygienic either  dipping your feet in water when someone with mancy feet has been 10mins before


----------



## sammiefu (Jul 2, 2011)

I had it done a few days ago! It tickles a little, feels like a bubbly foot spa. I couldn't look though, it freaked me out a bit. Feet didn't feel marvellous after like I was expecting them to, I think you'd have to have a few visits. 
Nice experience though x


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> Simple answer: Yes. I've been behind the scenes and seen the equipment used, and the holding tanks used to contain the unfortunate arrivals.


thank you for the answer


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

ClaireLouise said:


> Ive not tired it because I think its cruel and I dont like my feet touching anyway...... I cant see that its very hygienic either  dipping your feet in water when someone with mancy feet has been 10mins before


My thoughts exactly ClaireLousie


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> My thoughts exactly ClaireLousie


Think of all that Toe Jam floating in the water


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Think of all that Toe Jam floating in the water


well , the water in the one i went in certainly looked very clean and no toe jam in there and my feet are still on the end of my legs


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

can scabies live and be passed on in water?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> well , the water in the one i went in certainly looked very clean and no toe jam in there and my feet are still on the end of my legs


for now


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

ClaireLouise said:


> can scabies live and be passed on in water?


It seems so Scabies :scared:


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> can scabies live and be passed on in water?


Ive googles it...... it appears it can be


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Ive googles it...... it appears it can be


but that could also apply to public swimming pools couldnt it


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

read this thread with interest 

but... i can honestly say that...if i was to go for one of these fish pedicure things....you would so not want to go after me :nonod: :nonod:...my feet stink to high heaven....think about it :lol:...

juliex


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> for now


when i start crawling around i will let you know dt


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Ive not tired it because I think its cruel and I dont like my feet touching anyway...... I cant see that its very hygienic either  dipping your feet in water when someone with mancy feet has been 10mins before


verrucas.......... trenchfoot......... athlete's foot................. fungal nail infections................ corns........... and more........... all in there, floating around:eek


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> but that could also apply to public swimming pools couldnt it


No so sure about that. Maybe all the stuff they put in swimming pools would kill such things?


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Leaving asides the ethical issue- the way filters work for biological filtration the fish poop doesn't get removed from the tank water, it gets trapped on a sponge or other filter media that the water is constantly being recycled through. So in any filtered tank you won't see the poops, they will be held there in the filter chamber. In order for the filters to actually do their job you need an established bacterial colony that the water has to pass through- which means you need a good bit of muck on your media at all times. 

After owning fish and performing filter cleans you won't ever even get me in the sea again.


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

paddyjulie said:


> read this thread with interest
> 
> but... i can honestly say that...if i was to go for one of these fish pedicure things....you would so not want to go after me :nonod: :nonod:...my feet stink to high heaven....think about it :lol:...
> 
> juliex


you have to wash your feet first in a seperate area


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> but that could also apply to public swimming pools couldnt it


chlorine would kill most bugs I imagine, cant have chlorine in with the fish otherwise they would all be dead


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> can scabies live and be passed on in water?


oh my gawd.. mingin!:eek6:


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> No so sure about that. Maybe all the stuff they put in swimming pools would kill such things?


well, you are not allowed in public swimming pools with verucas unless you wear socks so cant imagine it would kill everything , also what about kiddies paddllng pools etc always get the adults having a dip in there especially with a few beers on them and i have never heard of anyone catching anything else


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> chlorine would kill most bugs I imagine, cant have chlorine in with the fish otherwise they would all be dead


no, i know what you are saying about the chlorine but there are plenty of other places that people share the same water and dont catch anything else, but eh you never know, i personally think you have more chance of catching something in a hospital than you ever would of sticking your feet in with someone elses


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> verrucas.......... trenchfoot......... athlete's foot................. fungal nail infections................ corns........... and more........... all in there, floating around:eek


dont forget fish poop:arf:


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> dont forget fish poop:arf:


ooh yes, worming its way into your crevices


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> no, i know what you are saying about the chlorine but there are plenty of other places that people share the same water and dont catch anything else, but eh you never know, i personally think you have more chance of catching something in a hospital than you ever would of sticking your feet in with someone elses


There isnt all that much water in them tanks, all them people sticking there feet in.......at 10mins a session and a 7.5 hour day being 430 so in a full day 84 feet could be in a litres of water  thats just one dy so if you last in on a friday 430 feet have been in the same couple of litres as yours


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> ooh yes, worming its way into your crevices


:yikes::yikes::yikes:


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> There isnt all that much water in them tanks, all them people sticking there feet in.......at 10mins a session and a 7.5 hour day being 430 so in a full day 84 feet could be in a litres of water


but the water was filtered constantly i would still rather take my chances with health in a fish spa rather than a hospital ward


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> well, you are not allowed in public swimming pools with verucas unless you wear socks so cant imagine it would kill everything , also what about kiddies paddllng pools etc always get the adults having a dip in there especially with a few beers on them and i have never heard of anyone catching anything else


Aye but you're not going to invite every tom dick n harry into your kids paddling pool are you?

I really don't know if chlorine would kill scabies, maybe it does? after all if it kills fish it might kill mites like scabies?


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> but the water was filtered constantly i would still rather take my chances with health in a fish spa rather than a hospital ward


I dont think a tank filtration system would be good enough to remove bug before the next client has got tooties in


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

I'm sorry, I think the health implications are irrelevant when fish are suffering for vanity...


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> but the water was filtered constantly i would still rather take my chances with health in a fish spa rather than a hospital ward


Did you read the info about filtration throughout the thread hun? Filters would not be sufficient to stop things like scabies from spreading to customers.

It might take away debris that you would otherwise see ... but think of all the microscopic things you won't see


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> Aye but you're not going to invite every tom dick n harry into your kids paddling pool are you?
> 
> I really don't know if chlorine would kill scabies, maybe it does? after all if it kills fish it might kill mites like scabies?


well even potent treatment from the vets has a job to kill mites so maybe ,maybe not and with regards to every tom,dick and harry, it would only take one friend with a foot infection wouldnt it
anyway i am off to bed now
night all


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

Tapir said:


> I'm sorry, I think the health implications are irrelevant when fish are suffering for vanity...


True, but if the thought of what you might catch using them makes people think twice as well, then it's a worthy point if it saves the fishies


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> well even potent treatment from the vets has a job to kill mites so maybe ,maybe not and with regards to every tom,dick and harry, it would only take one friend with a foot infection wouldnt it
> anyway i am off to bed now
> night all


You're right it would. But that's 1 person ... out of a possible 420 people in a week what do you think the chances are that someone before you had something undetectable by the naked eye whilst being inspected before the big dunk?

 The mind boggles!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

on the whole this support my thoughts on fish being bred of this kind of thing
please watch

YouTube - ‪Don't eat the Tunafish‬‏ 
a few swear word but a good point made, compare these fish being bred/used for money and kept in bad conditions to a puppy farm which are bred/used for money and kept in bad conditions who gets the sympathy


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

jenniferx said:


> After owning fish and performing filter cleans you won't ever even get me in the sea again.


you know your a true fish keeper when you know exactly what fish poo tastes like


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> well, you are not allowed in public swimming pools with verucas unless you wear socks so cant imagine it would kill everything , also what about kiddies paddllng pools etc always get the adults having a dip in there especially with a few beers on them and i have never heard of anyone catching anything else


No one has ever checked my feet when I have visited our local swimming pool (they are in pefect health for the record) but the chemicals they put in would kill most of the critters anyway! No so in these fish spa's though!
You are sharing the water with any tom dick of harry! and a few jememy kyle chavs too


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

sammiefu said:


> I had it done a few days ago! It tickles a little, feels like a bubbly foot spa. I couldn't look though, it freaked me out a bit. Feet didn't feel marvellous after like I was expecting them to, I think you'd have to have a few visits.
> Nice experience though x


Hi
andc welcome to pet forums did you find this thread of did it find you?


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

tillymax said:


> you know your a true fish keeper when you know exactly what fish poo tastes like


Haha, well I use self-starting syphons and electric pumps for water changing these days!



> It might take away debris that you would otherwise see ... but think of all the microscopic things you won't see


Well that's the thing isn't it- filters do not take away the debris- they just hold it in the chamber and the water is constantly recycled through it. That's how they work- when the poops have decayed enough denitrifying bacteria take up in the media, these bacteria process the harmful wastes and convert it to a less harmful chemical form (nitrate- which is removed when you change the water) but in order to stay alive and working the bacteria need to be constantly fed- via the flow of the water with the wastes in it. This is the process that enables you to keep fish in a safe contained mini eco-system. That is why you can't turn a filter off- if the flow stops, your bacteria are goners and you're back to square one with the water getting toxic very quickly. I live in fear of losing electricity in storms!

The only way to actually remove the poops and detritus is to manually open the filter up, take out the media and give it a squeeze in dechlorinated water (or old tank water). But you need enough of that muck in which the good bacteria live in order to keep the water from being harmful. A healthy filter is actually full of brown gunk.

Most fishkeepers maintain their filters about once a month, more if the tank is overstocked or if it has messy fish with large body masses but doing it too often kills off the bacteria and would defeat the purpose of filtering in the first instance.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Aurelia said:


> True, but if the thought of what you might catch using them makes people think twice as well, then it's a worthy point if it saves the fishies


Just back from my Dads and read through the replies.

I think (don't faint Aurelia) that this post is the best suggestion throughout the thread for 'turning people off using Fish spas'.

Not everyone is concerned for an animal's health, but they are always concerned for their own.

I reckon if Max Clifford was tasked with finishing off the Fish Spa trade within 6 weeks and was given 2 options; one being the health of the fish and the other being the health of the customers, he would go with the health of the customers.

Especially..."Fish spas can give you scabies" - which, if Google is correct, could indeed be true.

Food for thought for any activists? The Daily Mail would jump on the story given half the chance.

P.S. Aurelia, you can get up off the floor now. I hope you didn't hurt your head when you fainted.


----------



## miniloo (Feb 7, 2011)

after spending nearly 3 hrs reading this thread, am i nearly lost the will to live a few times 

i can say that it lost the topic a hell of a lot more then it stayed on it. 

in answer to the question of the thread have i or would i the answer is no i haven't and no i wouldn't, 

reasons 
1/i do not like my feet to be touch,
2/keeping fish and learning dare i say it by mistakes i can honistly say i do not know how they keep these tanks clean with so many fish in them without loosing at least one fish a day.
3/ i hate feet and would never inflict them on ppl so why would i do it to a poor defencless animal, :nono:


and yes after reading all that i was determained to write a long post and make someone else do yet more reading lol


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> verrucas.......... trenchfoot......... athlete's foot................. fungal nail infections................ corns........... and more........... all in there, floating around:eek


And if the welfare of the fsh doesn't worry or concern some people ... you think that would 

When training, I spent time in what we then called "casualty" ... one evening a week, a foot clinic was held in the department. You would think people ALL people coming in to have their feet examined, treated would have washed them wouldn't you? They didn't ... many HUMMED and would come in with manky feet and nails ... totally unrelated to foot issue :nonod:

So I personally shudder to think what kind of feet go in them tanks ... yuck.

In my opinion ... it's a fad and something people have done to tell their friends about ... I think you'll find few people who genuinely care about creature welfare in these places.

Me? I'd rather pay for a nice pedicure and varnish, or failing that an old washing up bowl, filled with warm water, essential oil and a nice fluffy towel


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Isn't it all just a bit ...well .... manky


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

RAINYBOW said:


> Isn't it all just a bit ...well .... manky


well it's certainly a bit fishy


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> well it's certainly a bit fishy


I trained in Beauty Therapy for a year along with my Hairdressing (many moons ago) and we had to learn all the contra indications for feet (basically all the manky foot related stuff that meant you couldnt do a pedicure on them)

Maybe that why i am put off 

On the animal welare front i suppose i would look at it the same as i look at how my food is raised. I would say its probably equal in terms of cruelty to battery farmed chickens and enough people keep on buying them for Tesco to have to re stock every day. Maybe some celebrity will do a campaign but maybe fish arent as cuddly as chicks 

Its very hard to be truly cruelty free and very few people are through ignorace or choice but i would say if you are armed with the facts on something it's worth reviewing your position no mmatter how relaxing it was or how nice your feet felt. Go have a* Reflexology *massage instead, i guarantee you it will be even more relaxing, then have a regular pedicure for smooth and silky tootsie. This fish thing is just a gimmick IMO.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

RAINYBOW said:


> I trained in Beauty Therapy for a year along with my Hairdressing (many moons ago) and we had to learn all the contra indications for feet (basically all the manky foot related stuff that meant you couldnt do a pedicure on them)
> 
> Maybe that why i am put off
> 
> ...


Fraid rainybows you have hit the nail on the head! Tis allabout money! and if itscheap enough then all though of welfare fly outta the window with some!
I mentioned it earlier those that buy two for a fiver chickens, eggs from caged hens etc etc etc would perhaps not pay the £30 for a good pedicure, but the nine quid charged here is little more then the price of a packet of ****.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> And if the welfare of the fsh doesn't worry or concern some people ... you think that would
> 
> When training, I spent time in what we then called "casualty" ... one evening a week, a foot clinic was held in the department. You would think people ALL people coming in to have their feet examined, treated would have washed them wouldn't you? They didn't ... many HUMMED and would come in with manky feet and nails ... totally unrelated to foot issue :nonod:
> 
> ...


Oh thats revolting, I'd be ashamed of showing my feet to someone if they smelled
I agree with you, had a lovely massage, pedicure & varnish courtesy of my lovely hubby the other night, & no fish were harmed or exploited in the process


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> No one has ever checked my feet when I have visited our local swimming pool (they are in pefect health for the record) but the chemicals they put in would kill most of the critters anyway! No so in these fish spa's though!
> You are sharing the water with any tom dick of harry! and a few jememy kyle chavs too


i should imagine there are more than a few dicks in the local swimming pool DT anyhow, it is still each to their own isnt it and if i dont mind risking my healthy feet so be it i am not asking anyone else to risk theirs am i


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Fraid rainybows you have hit the nail on the head! Tis allabout money! and if itscheap enough then all though of welfare fly outta the window with some!
> I mentioned it earlier those that buy two for a fiver chickens, eggs from caged hens etc etc etc would perhaps not pay the £30 for a good pedicure, but the nine quid charged here is little more then the price of a packet of ****.


oh and just to add i am not a chav who buys 2 for £5 chickens,i have my own chickens for eggs and i can actually afford the £30 odd for a good pedicure but i actually chose to give the fish pedicure a try because I wanted to, my choice completely and nothing to do with money


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> oh and just to add i am not a chav who buys 2 for £5 chickens,i have my own chickens for eggs and i can actually afford the £30 odd for a good pedicure but i actually chose to give the fish pedicure a try because I wanted to, my choice completely and nothing to do with money


Erm! did I specifically mention your name? What makes you think I was referring to you?  I don't doubt for one moment that if you so wish you would fork out for a pedicure! But I think most would agree that the cost of the fish spas being so relativly cheap do appear to a who differnet audience including those who would maybe never ever consider having a pedicure due to the cost! As I said earlier - little more then a packet of **** these days!


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Erm! did I specifically mention your name? What makes you think I was referring to you?  I don't doubt for one moment that if you so wish you would fork out for a pedicure! But I think most would agree that the cost of the fish spas being so relativly cheap do appear to a who differnet audience including those who would maybe never ever consider having a pedicure due to the cost! As I said earlier - little more then a packet of **** these days!


not my name no, and glad you were not referring to me but just wanted to let you know that not everyone who uses fish spas are not likely to pay for a proper pedicure yes it is cheap but i wanted to try it for myself and yes, i did enjoy it but that seems to be a sin when i was in there , there was a variety of older ladies and young woman trying it out and i dare say looking at them, they could all have afforded the £30 + and didnt have to buy 2 for £5 chickens i suppose there are lots of things that are a little more than a packet of **** but i wouldnt try them unless i wanted to,no matter what anyone said to me


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

:lol: :lol:

I have to ask though, do you not feel at all bad knowing that those fish will die so you (and others) can have a fadtastic time with them munching on your feet because they are so hungry?

Genuine question


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Aurelia said:


> :lol: :lol:
> 
> I have to ask though, do you not feel at all bad knowing that those fish will die so you (and others) can have a fadtastic time with them munching on your feet because they are so hungry?
> 
> Genuine question


I've asked the same many times in the past, only to be ridiculed or have people not answering the question and instead retorting with questions about how I can fish for sport and yet speak out against fish spas...

It's a strange world.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> not my name no, and glad you were not referring to me but just wanted to let you know that not everyone who uses fish spas are not likely to pay for a proper pedicure yes it is cheap but i wanted to try it for myself and yes, i did enjoy it but that seems to be a sin when i was in there , there was a variety of older ladies and young woman trying it out and i dare say looking at them, they could all have afforded the £30 + and didnt have to buy 2 for £5 chickens i suppose there are lots of things that are a little more than a packet of **** but i wouldnt try them unless i wanted to,no matter what anyone said to me


It is the cost that have been the biggest pull with the masses though -if they were charging even £35 for this doubt there would be half as many trying it! I think you would have to agree that the cost of these spas have ecouraged folk who would never ever ever dream of folking out for a pedicure though! 
When groupon did them for £9 they sold thousands. People can spend their money how they like, yes! but I'll still stick with my orignal thoughs on this one thank ya very much! As sure what I think ain't going to alter anyone elses views


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> It is the cost that have been the biggest pull with the masses though -if they were charging even £35 for this doubt there would be half as many trying it! I think you would have to agree that the cost of these spas have ecouraged folk who would never ever ever dream of folking out for a pedicure though!
> When groupon did them for £9 they sold thousands. People can spend their money how they like, yes! but I'll still stick with my orignal thoughs on this one thank ya very much! As sure what I think ain't going to alter anyone elses views


no, i can fully understand what you are saying but i do think a lot of people who can genuinely afford a more expensive pedicure will still give this a go just to try it and no, i dont suppose what you think will alter anyones views who does want to give it a go is your rolleyes button stuck again


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Aurelia said:


> :lol: :lol:
> 
> I have to ask though, do you not feel at all bad knowing that those fish will die so you (and others) can have a fadtastic time with them munching on your feet because they are so hungry?
> 
> Genuine question


genuine answer : no no one actually knows how many fish do die though do they?
do you think it is fair for people to keep birds in a cage when they should be out flying around a bird is kept in a small cage nearly all its life


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> no, i can fully understand what you are saying but i do think a lot of people who can genuinely afford a more expensive pedicure will still give this a go just to try it and no, i dont suppose what you think will alter anyones views who does want to give it a go is your rolleyes button stuck again


T'is in testing for a replacement for my trademark exclamation mark - which do you prefer

lol
DT

by the way! can the fishy's varnish your toe nails yet? I am having mine foiled next week


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Forum WW3 junkies will be right at home here...


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

DoubleTrouble said:


> T'is in testing for a replacement for my trademark exclamation mark - which do you prefer
> 
> lol
> DT
> ...


a few smilies wouldnt go amiss not sure about the varnish though, would you like me to ask them when i next go in


----------



## archiebaby (Feb 25, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> Forum WW3 junkies will be right at home here...


who's that at .... me???


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> who's that at .... me???


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> genuine answer : no no one actually knows how many fish do die though do they?
> do you think it is fair for people to keep birds in a cage when they should be out flying around a bird is kept in a small cage nearly all its life


I would have thought that every single fish used in these spas dies a premature death because of it. You only have to look at their requirements for living to understand that it's more than possible.

It's got nothing to do with birds in cages? I really don't understand why some of you keep using the same daft argument. Birds aren't kept in cages to peck at your feet, nor are they starved in order to do so.

But thank you for being honest and admitting you don't care if the fish die so you can have your feet pampered


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Here lies the body of Mary Lee &#8230; died at the age of 103 &#8230;.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> no one actually knows how many fish do die though do they?


Fish spas have admitted that about 90% of their stock is dead within 2-3 weeks...


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Fish spas have admitted that about 90% of their stock is dead within 2-3 weeks...


That is horrific! I had no idea that their lifespan was that reduced!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

archiebaby said:


> no, i can fully understand what you are saying but i do think a lot of people who can genuinely afford a more expensive pedicure will still give this a go just to try it


I personally doubt it. I love a nice pedicure as a treat as do many of my friends, none of us have ever been tempted to try one of these "fish pedicures" and we are all aware of them ... all find it quite horrible for varying reasons :tongue_smilie:

I can understand that it may appeal to those who like a gimmick though and don't give a jot about the fish and their welfare. Rather like people who enjoy a day at the races or a night at "the dogs" ... Many people see no further than thier own wants and can't or don't want to see the bigger picture ... the imapact on anyone/anything else 

Just my thoughts of course


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

archiebaby said:


> genuine answer : no no one actually knows how many fish do die though do they?
> do you think it is fair for people to keep birds in a cage when they should be out flying around a bird is kept in a small cage nearly all its life


i dont agree with keeping birds in small cages either thats also inhumane...to me two wrongs dont make a right, one act of cruelty dosent justify another.

anyway any one for popcorn:tongue_smilie: lol


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> i dont agree with keeping birds in small cages either thats also inhumane...to me two wrongs dont make a right, one act of cruelty dosent justify another.
> 
> anyway any one for popcorn:tongue_smilie: lol


You save the seats! (the normal ones on the front row) I'll nip and get the pop corn


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> anyway any one for popcorn:tongue_smilie: lol


No thank you, watching the calories still


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I would never have it done I think it is cruel to half starve them, keep so many in such tiny tanks and the reduced lifespan if true is awful. Not to mention the idea of sticking my feet in where hundreds of other manky feet have been *shudders*


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

We all seem to have very different opinions on the subject, some think it is cruel, others don't, That is life i am afraid. 

22 pages later and once being closed and had to be edited etc by the mods. 

Don't you think we can agree to disagree, i am not sure why this thread has got so personal with people, i have seen it, i would go for one just to see what it is like etc that does not mean that i am an ANIMAL ABUSER and cruel to fish!! 

These spas have been banned in other countries but not the UK? Why?? 

They must of been ok'd by trading standards etc and checked otherwise they would not be allowed to do it end of.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Stuff the popcorn - I'll have a vodka please...

I still cannot get my head round it. Paying 15 quid to have fish eat the crusty skin on your feet for 10 minutes.


Am I tight? Must be. Once a week I get my pumice stone out of the cupboard and give my feet a good going over.....I then rub in some nice moisuriser - smooth as a babies bum. 

I would rather spend 15 pounds on two bottles of nice red.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

gorgeous said:


> Stuff the popcorn - I'll have a vodka please...
> 
> I still cannot get my head round it. Paying 15 quid to have fish eat the crusty skin on your feet for 10 minutes.
> 
> ...


i do love your style


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

KathrynH said:


> They must of been ok'd by trading standards etc and checked otherwise they would not be allowed to do it end of.


You could say the same about pet shops and many of them are quite vile despite being ok'd by trading standards. For many, this is going to be about the ethics of using and keeping fish like this 

Of course each to their own.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> You could say the same about pet shops and many of them are quite vile despite being ok'd by trading standards. For many, this is going to be about the ethics of using and keeping fish like this
> 
> Of course each to their own.


Yes i am afraid it is each to there own, what some think is cruel, others dont.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KathrynH said:


> We all seem to have very different opinions on the subject, some think it is cruel, others don't, That is life i am afraid.
> 
> 22 pages later and once being closed and had to be edited etc by the mods.
> 
> ...


well i'd be asking why theyve been banned in other countries myself...because if i thought there was even a teeny chance those fish were suffering for something as shallow (excuse the pun) as the beauty industry then i could never be party to it!....my conscience wont allow it.


----------



## Aurelia (Apr 29, 2010)

KathrynH said:


> Yes i am afraid it is each to there own, what some think is cruel, others dont.


That is the unfortunate truth!

My brain is having a hard time figuring out why the death of an animal for the sake of someones vanity is even being defended on this ... a PET forum.  

I wonder how many people who keep fish at home have tried to put their feet in their fish tank to see what happens ... jesting aside I bet some have!


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I did, but I made the mistake of putting my feet into my tank when I had piranhas.

Never again, lesson learnt!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Aurelia said:


> That is the unfortunate truth!
> 
> My brain is having a hard time figuring out why the death of an animal for the sake of someones vanity is even being defended on this ... a PET forum.
> 
> I wonder how many people who keep fish at home have tried to put their feet in their fish tank to see what happens ... jesting aside I bet some have!


Me too if it was dogs or cats they would be up in arms but because it has scales not fur it's totally ok . Can honestly say I've never done that but it wouldn't have done me much good anyway only had goldfish


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> well i'd be asking why theyve been banned in other countries myself...because if i thought there was even a teeny chance those fish were suffering for something as shallow (excuse the pun) as the beauty industry then i could never be party to it!....my consience wont allow it.


Well as much as i have a conscience, i could still go for one.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Aurelia said:


> That is the unfortunate truth!
> 
> My brain is having a hard time figuring out why the death of an animal for the sake of someones vanity is even being defended on this ... a PET forum.
> 
> I wonder how many people who keep fish at home have tried to put their feet in their fish tank to see what happens ... jesting aside I bet some have!


I will have a go now and come back to you!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Aurelia said:


> My brain is having a hard time figuring out why the death of an animal for the sake of someones vanity is even being defended on this ... a PET forum.


That's what you call ironic...

A business can be checked my Trading Standards, but that doesn't mean a damn thing. Trading Standards don't check water quality, enforce a minimum tank size, enforce dietary requirements for _Garra rufa_ or enforce a maximum number of fish per tank. The fact is, Trading Standards don't know these simple facts and nor do they go seeking for an 'expert' opinion.

Once TS have checked the business out, they cut the rope and the spa is free to do whatever they damn please.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

KathrynH said:


> Well as much as i have a conscience, i could still go for one.


And also hand your money to a business where over 90% of the stock will die within 2-3 weeks...

If these fish were human, it would be genocide.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> And also hand your money to a business where over 90% of the stock will die within 2-3 weeks...
> 
> If these fish were human, it would be genocide.


But there not are they.

Why do you all seem to read so much into stuff, if this was a cat or a dog etc, the amount of animal abuse we see every single day in our lives and you are screaming at everyone about a "fish spa"

How many of you eat fish???? Talk about contradicting yourselves i tell you


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Aurelia said:


> That is the unfortunate truth!
> 
> My brain is having a hard time figuring out why the death of an animal for the sake of someones vanity is even being defended on this ... a PET forum.
> 
> I wonder how many people who keep fish at home have tried to put their feet in their fish tank to see what happens ... jesting aside I bet some have!


erm, I used to when we lived in the middle east, I was a child though, I also used to let the goldfish in our pond nibble my hands at feeding time, I wanted to get them as tame as the koi carp I met in Japan
ETA, it was a pond & the sea though, not a fish tank, just thought O better clarify that!


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

KathrynH said:


> But there not are they.
> 
> Why do you all seem to read so much into stuff, if this was a cat or a dog etc, the amount of animal abuse we see every single day in our lives and you are screaming at everyone about a "fish spa"
> 
> How many of you eat fish???? Talk about contradicting yourselves i tell you


does anyone fancie a cat curry, hey it might not be ethical....but damb if it tastes good I shall hand my money over to anyone:nono:


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2011)

Well I jut dipped my big toe in the pond! and all the fishy's dived to the bottom Relieved they did as I would hate them around my feet! 
Which has just jogged my memory of a nasty experience I had when I fell asleep in the sea on a airbed many many years ago!


----------



## magpie (Jan 3, 2009)

I don't see the relevance that fishing has to the fish spa argument?? 

It's not hypocrisy to eat fish and also state that fish spas are cruel. The two have nothing to do with each other. 

I eat meat, but I'd still say it's cruel to keep pigs or chickens in filthy overcrowded barns. Surely it's only hypocritical if I then eat the animals that were kept in filthy overcrowded barns?


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Closing this due to personal arguments


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I'm putting this back now after editing out an awful lot of very off-topic posts. If this continues in the same way it will be removed and further action may be taken. Whatever your disagreements there really is no need to insult other members or their intelligence.
Oops sorry for the delay - re-opened but forgot to move it back :blush:


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

lymorelynn said:


> Whatever your disagreements there really is no need to insult other members or their intelligence.


Amen to that, hopefully those 'adults' who also make personal jibes at younger members will get the message.

Now, shall we get back to business of having a sensible debate?


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Amen to that, hopefully those 'adults' who also make personal jibes at younger members will get the message.
> 
> Now, shall we get back to business of having a sensible debate?


Don't have a problem with that! but it cuts two ways! and age cannot be used as a barrier when both side are slinging the mud! In a court it would be classed as 'age; discrimination!


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

lymorelynn said:


> I'm putting this back now after editing out an awful lot of very off-topic posts. If this continues in the same way it will be removed and further action may be taken. Whatever your disagreements there really is no need to insult other members or their intelligence.
> Oops sorry for the delay - re-opened but forgot to move it back :blush:


Lots of likes for this post I see! not from me though as many of my posts have been deleted and I was neither defensive nor arguementive, neither did I insult anyone! So is there a reason to delete my posts I ask?


----------



## XxZoexX (Sep 8, 2010)

Have Em's (Eroswoof) posts gone too? I thought they had a valid point and didnt see them offensive


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

XxZoexX said:


> Have Em's (Eroswoof) posts gone too? I thought they had a valid point and didnt see them offensive


Don't worry :lol: There's no point having bad feelings up and I'm staying out of it now, it's just pointless MWAH xxxxxxx


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

I am the first to admit i was argumentative with luke but it as someone has just said, it cuts both ways i am afraid. 

Anyway i am out of here as i have far more important things to worry about.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Don't have a problem with that! but it cuts two ways! and age cannot be used as a barrier when both side are slinging the mud! In a court it would be classed as 'age; discrimination!


Sadly, a small percentage of members on here use the fact that one member is younger than another to try and prove that adults are somehow superior and always correct.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

There were a lot of valid points and I'm sure a lot of what I took out wasn't offensive to anyone but there was a whole block with quotes and counter quotes that had to go or none of it would have made sense. If any of you feel you were removed unfairly go back and make your point again.


----------



## XxZoexX (Sep 8, 2010)

Chillinator said:


> Sadly, a small percentage of members on here use the fact that one member is younger than another to try and prove that adults are somehow superior and always correct.


I dont recall seeing any of that.. You can certainly hold your own on the personal jibes. I didnt see any age related digs 

Ah well...

I turn VERY nasty if anyone touches my feet.. OH has learnt that, So Not a chance i would go for a pedicure or a fish spa.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Chillinator said:


> Sadly, a small percentage of members on here use the fact that one member is younger than another to try and prove that adults are somehow superior and always correct.


Don't start these arguments over again. I don't recall anyone being ageist towards your points of view. 
Please keep this on topic or it will be closed again.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Sadly, a small percentage of members on here use the fact that one member is younger than another to try and prove that adults are somehow superior and always correct.


Luke!
I would be the first to congratulate you on you input on this thread! I agree with you 100% on any data you have supplied that would and should make anyone think twice about supporting these dreadful places! BUT you retaliation on some of the members imv was uncalled for and unjust!
then to come on when the thread was reopened with the post that you did just speaks volumes to me! As I said before you need to address you peopleing skills - you catch bees with honey! NOT vinegar!


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

lymorelynn said:


> Don't start these arguments over again. I don't recall anyone being ageist towards your points of view.
> Please keep this on topic or it will be closed again.





DoubleTrouble said:


> Luke!
> I would be the first to congratulate you on you input on this thread! I agree with you 100% on any data you have supplied that would and should make anyone think twice about supporting these dreadful places! BUT you retaliation on some of the members imv was uncalled for and unjust!
> the to come on when the thread was reopened with the post that you did just speaks volumes to me! As I said before you need to address you peopleing skills - you catch bees with honey! NOT vinegar!


Just putting the point across, of course nobody else actually saw the personal messages remarking about my age that were left on my visitor profile. Fortunately, Mark saw sense and removed them.

You simply made a reference to age barriers, I simply responded to it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Just putting the point across, of course nobody else actually saw the personal messages remarking about my age that were left on my visitor profile. Fortunately, Mark saw sense and removed them.
> 
> You simply made a reference to age barriers, I simply responded to it.


Maybe it's time we got back to discrediting these places  what do you say! I am 100% with you on that one! having a pedicure tomorrow (a tradition one - and my toe nails foiled )

And the topic is fish spa's NOT fishing nor angling


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Wow. Just had an email. Is this thread STILL going? 

What was the original question? Has it been answered yet?


----------



## miniloo (Feb 7, 2011)

Chillinator said:


> Just putting the point across, of course nobody else actually saw the personal messages remarking about my age that were left on my visitor profile. Fortunately, Mark saw sense and removed them.
> 
> You simply made a reference to age barriers, I simply responded to it.


sorry to interupt what looks like a good argument but what has this to do with fish spa, 

i came back thinking that there might be more info as to what ppl actually thought about them not what ppl thought about each other so back to subject.

as i said earlier i would not use one, but then i am not a person who goes infor things that are beautifying, :blush:

i could see that if they were used in the right place then they could be of some benifit for some ppl but i agree that they are reducing the lives of the fish and that to me is not acceptible. :nono:


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

miniloo said:


> what has this to do with fish spa,


You could ask the same question to the good old folks who talk about angling, eating meat, drowning dogs, putting domestic pets in curries etc. - what have these got to do with fish spas?

I won't try to answer that for anyone, I won't say a goddamn word.


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

archiebaby said:


> who has tried it???????
> i am going today


Back to the original question ^^^^^^ asked by Archiebaby.

No, I haven't tried it. I do own multiple businesses in the hair and beauty industry though and have peers who own either whole spas dedicated to it or have a tank in their beauty salons. It's not for me or my businesses as it wouldn't be profitable enough.

Did you enjoy it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2011)

archiebaby said:


> who has tried it???????
> i am going today





classixuk said:


> Back to the original question ^^^^^^ asked by Archiebaby.
> 
> No, I haven't tried it. I do own multiple businesses in the hair and beauty industry though and have peers who own either whole spas dedicated to it or have a tank in their beauty salons. It's not for me or my businesses as it wouldn't be profitable enough.
> 
> Did you enjoy it?


To reply to the original question, and following the lead set by Classic]]
Nope! I havn't tried it! and I doubt i ever shall, I have a thing about fish around me -they sort of freak me out! there are a couple of places who have set up close to us and they are quite 'seedy' to say the least! call me old fashioned but I shall stick with my beautian who offers a more 'traditional' service!


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> To reply to the original question, and following the lead set by Classic]]
> Nope! I havn't tried it! and I doubt i ever shall, I have a thing about fish around me -they sort of freak me out! there are a couple of places who have set up close to us and they are quite 'seedy' to say the least! call me old fashioned but I shall stick with my beautian who offers a more 'traditional' service!


I'm with you on that one DT. The idea of all those fish swimming around my feet would absolutely freak me out. I'm not sure I'd enjoy it...endure would be a more appropriate word.

When I was 20 I went into the sea in Durban, South Africa. It was only up to my knees, and the water was so choppy that it was churning up the sand from the sea-bed making visibility nil. My friends began shouting at me from the shore and there was a life-guard with them too. I had no idea what they were so worried about, but I began wading back to the shore.

Imagine my surprise when I got back and the lifeguard (who was furious) pulled me over to the sign that said, "No swimming or bathing. Sharks in the water".

That's about the closest I've ever come to a fish pedicure.


----------



## strangefruit (May 25, 2011)

Some folks have gotten nasty infections from doing this, so if you plan on having fish nibble at your feet just buy your own.


----------

