Tattooed mollies
Silver sailfin mollies are the latest victims of tattooing, as this video clip shows.
As we announced back in February last year, fish suppliers in parts of the Far East are now tattooing certain types of fish to make them more saleable.
These tattooed mollies are the latest piscine victims of this craze, as this YouTube video shot by huihyper in Asia shows.
We received reports last week that tattooed Clown loaches have apparently gone on sale in the UK in the past week (we're awaiting photographic evidence of this). What a shame that suppliers think the UK fishkeeping public will be interested in keeping such fish.
Matt Clarke: Sun February 4, 2007, 3:19 pmViews: This entry has been read 33,500 times.
30 comments on: Tattooed mollies
Jump to comments form
"Its so horrible that people will do and buy fish like these. But it won't stop while there is still a demand for them."
Posted by: Bruce Jones - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Sunday February 4th, 2007, 6:22 pm
"Why would any one do this to these fish surely they must under go enormous stress through which ever process this is done by. TATTOOING FISH! REALY! WHY?
Are there not enough different kinds of species out there? that they have to do this."
Date: Monday February 5th, 2007, 11:15 am
"All that cruelty and they don't even look nice! I think the general public should be made more aware of this practice. PFK has done a grand job with their campaign but I would like to see the RSPCA get involved as well."
Posted by: Caz Van Slyck - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Monday February 5th, 2007, 1:48 pm
"What is the world coming to!. I hope that one day it can be banned. Why these evil things are still happening is mad. Does it mean we will see pink spotted Chihuahuas soon? "
Posted by: Nikola Middlemast - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Monday February 5th, 2007, 2:07 pm
"Sadly these fish will sell in the UK, not that any PFK reader will buy them, but you know that some irresponsible retailers will stock them.
Only a complete boycott of these dealers will stop the demand for these fish in the UK.
You wouldn't get your dog or cat tattooed so why is it ok to do it to a fish?
The dealer in Northamptonshire should hang their heads in shame over the diseased and coloured glassfish.
"
Date: Monday February 5th, 2007, 2:34 pm
"thats disgusting any buying thise fish should be banned from any other fish shops its just plain wrong"
Posted by: Jack Pennycook - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Monday February 5th, 2007, 4:38 pm
"surely our british legislation of animal cruelty, would prevent the sale of these poorly treated creatures. this really should not happen today. arent we supposed to be the intelligent spieces? as already mentioned, there are so many varieties of fish this is not needed."
Posted by: Leon Smith - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Monday February 5th, 2007, 9:02 pm
"Man's constant fascination with attempting to "enhance" nature by using cosmetic procedures never fails to fill me with disappointment. Some aspects are acceptable - selective breeding to acheive new colour strains springs to mind. But this, along with dying and fin pruning is a step too far and a reminder that not only bad taste looks gawdy, but more importantly, is cruel to the fish.
I would hope that UK customers would not buy these fish. But for the uneducated, with perhaps questionable taste, what is there to stop them?
I can see it now, a young child spots these colourful fish and the unwitting parent agrees to buy them, after all they are eye-catching.
I too wonder what the legislation is on this practice in the UK. Do you know Matt?"
Date: Tuesday February 6th, 2007, 8:25 am
"Back in the planning stages, it was hoped that the Animal Welfare Act (now part of law) would make this sort of thing illegal. Sadly, that hasn't been the case.
I wrote this story a year ago explaining that DEFRA and the RSPCA (who were helping formulate the Act) had both confirmed to me that the process of producing dyed fish did constitute mutilation. As a result, it was, and is, illegal under previous and current legislation.
However, since the fish are being mutilated outside the UK, the Act and other existing laws, are powerless to stop the sale of such pets.
Given that we'd brought this loophole to the attention of both parties involved in the planning of the legislation, while it was still in the preparatory stages, it is a great shame that they decided not to close the loophole.
There remains the possibility that new regulations covering the sale of mutilated animals might be introduced. Ben Bradshaw's office told me that the Animal Welfare Act did allow this, but it depends on what government want to do about it.
Let's hope they eventually see sense and take legal measures to stamp this out. Then I'll have to find something else to rant about. (Shouldn't be too difficult!) "
Date: Tuesday February 6th, 2007, 8:47 am
"What can you add really to what's already been commented on, but this is the 1st time I have seen this ridiculous looking practise and quite frankly anyone who thinks this type of marketing is a winner should be ashamed, if this is how money is made, then hope these greedy people sleep easily at night knowing the stress and cruelty I am sure is inflicted on these fish what next multi couloured rabbits and mice !!!!!!!!!"
Posted by: Alan Jones - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Tuesday February 6th, 2007, 8:22 pm
"It's a disgrace and any shop stocking these fish have proven themselves to be supporters of animal abuse and should therefore have any licences immediately revoked.
Is there nothing OATA can do to refuse licences to any shop stocking abused fish?
It is my understanding that although it is illegal to dye a fish in the UK it is not illegal to import them as they are not illegal in Europe and to restrict UK traders would contravene european law, but perhaps a sustained barrage of letters addressed to our various MEP's with the support of PFK and the members of the many fish forums would enable the banning of these fish under european law. What do you reckon Matt? ;-)
Arfie"
Date: Tuesday February 6th, 2007, 9:42 pm
"Yes, good call, Arfie. For those of you that aren't aware, Arfie's being modest. He's already run a successful campaign on a number of forums encouraging users to send letters to their MPs. I believe the response has been quite promising hasn't it? I imagine that there can't be an MP in the UK that hasn't heard of dyed fish by now!
I believe these Mollies are actually outside the UK. There's little OATA is able to do to refuse licences. OATA is only able to make recommendations to its members, but only a fraction of the UK's stores have signed up, and those that have are those perhaps least likely to stock dyed fish..."
Date: Tuesday February 6th, 2007, 9:51 pm
"I also think that this is a disgusting thing to do. Surely there is a wide enough variation as nature intended. Why do people have to mess with what nature has supplied?. I am new to aquatics, but wish to condemn these(people?) for pampering to a fashion which has no purpose.
"
Date: Wednesday February 7th, 2007, 10:53 am
"i cant belive people actually tattoo fish if you know anything about the process it involves pricking the skin into the dermis to introduce a permant dye, im not sure scales have a dermis? i think these fish are externaly dyed. if so why shock people with the improper use of the word tattoo."
Posted by: John Courteney-smith - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Wednesday February 7th, 2007, 2:34 pm
"Actually, fish do have a dermis. Fish skin consists of two layers, an epidermis and a dermis. Contrary to popular belief, their scales don't stick out of the skin, either. They're actually embedded in it and have an epithelial layer on the top. When a fish loses a scale it also loses a bit of skin tissue and that leaves it open to infection. Losing a scale is said to be the equivalent of a second-degree burn to a fish, so my university lecturers told me.
I believe these fish are probably laser-dye tatooed. No needles are involved in the case of these fish. It's done with a dye laser. Sounds harmless, but as this story explains, dye lasers cause ablation - cells and tissue is ripped away by acoustic damage. The epithelial layer over the scales gets damaged, so it doesn't make an awful lot of difference whether a laser is used or a needle. The end result is a hole in the fish's skin that leaves it open to infection and probably causes it some pain.
There's been no definite evidence that these Mollies are definitely produced by the dye laser tattoo technique, but the patterns seem are very similar to those we've reported in other laser-tattooed fish.
As a result, I think the use of the word tattoo is justified."
Date: Wednesday February 7th, 2007, 3:11 pm
"i can believe people do that to a fish they have such lovely colours of their own they do not need tattooing or dying, i think the people doing it should be named and shamed "
Posted by: Beverley Morrison - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Thursday February 8th, 2007, 2:00 pm
"this has to be one of most horrid things ive seen, its not normal"
Posted by: Carina Keep - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Saturday February 10th, 2007, 1:02 pm
"shops that sell any kind of tattooed or dyed fish should as well as being named and shamed, should have their pet licenses took off them!!"
Posted by: Peter Oconnor - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Thursday February 15th, 2007, 11:22 pm
"i personally have quite a few tattoos and the discomfort that ifollows for three or four weeks is terrible how a fish stands up to this is unbeleivable but at least its my choice what choice a fish"
Posted by: Peter Hannam - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Friday February 16th, 2007, 7:58 am
"I feel so sorry for these fish and for the people who do this to them well i could tell u wat i think of those sick heartless so n so'z but ill probably b band of here!!!"
Posted by: Al Williams - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Friday February 16th, 2007, 10:07 pm
"I am new to fish keeping but I think this should be stamped out right away. I am sure that most of the good stockist's in this country will have more sence that to stock this kind of fish. Or could I be wrong. "
Posted by: Wayne Nolan - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Saturday February 17th, 2007, 9:31 pm
"it is not our place to change the way these fish or any fish [parrot fish etc] look nature decides on these things not us. we should think of what the fish go through during the tattooing process. "
Posted by: Samantha Simpson - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Monday February 19th, 2007, 2:12 pm
"Hi, I am a pre-school teacher who has a small fish tank in my class room and I also have a tank that I keep at home that is bigger. I went to the fish store and saw these fish and did buy some from my tank at home and for the one in my class room. I knew nothing about them until I read your site. To be honest they are beautiful and I can see why people would be drawn to them. My kids at school who are three and four think they look like fish from Dr. Seuss! My only question is why is this wrong, but branding cattle and horses with a hot poker definitely causing pain is alright? Now that I know how it is done, I will no longer buy them. Thanks
"
Date: Monday February 19th, 2007, 5:35 pm
"This is just disgusting, fish don't need to have this done to them, they are naturally beautiful. Its beyond belief why anyone would want to do this, I will deffently be reporting any uk fish supplies who stock fish who have been tattooed"
Posted by: Scott Harwood - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Tuesday February 20th, 2007, 2:50 pm
"These mollies that are tatooed with wild colors is the most gross attempt to alter a fish that has beautiful features without human interference. Breeding fish to enhance certain features is cool, but to change the nature of an animal to make it look like a clown is sick.
I live in South Florida, and in our canals we have the most beautiful sailfin mollies that exist, we do not have to change them by painting them in unatural colors.
"
Date: Friday February 23rd, 2007, 2:19 pm
"This is one of the most digusting thing i have ever seen done to a fish, these fish will die soon after people buy them which they will as people like to follow fashion no matter who or what they hurt.
the poeple who buy these fish are not fish keepers just show offs for something they find new or different it gives them something to talk about in heir boring hum drum lives.
Thanks
Andrew "
Date: Friday February 23rd, 2007, 6:52 pm
"The is sick!! What are they think of, that is so cruel. I would refuse to shop in a store that would stock this. What sort of fish or animal lover would buy these. you wouldn't see a dog in a pet shop shaved and tattooed with flames, and say i want to buy this dog... Sick Sick people "
Posted by: Aidan Finnegan - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Friday February 23rd, 2007, 7:31 pm
"The tattooing of fish is totally barbaric! These people who do it - how would they like to be "branded" with a hot iron?
I believe that us fishkeeping enthusiasts should make a real effort and totally boycot any outlets which offer these poor creatures for sale."
Date: Saturday February 24th, 2007, 10:35 pm
"50.00 Thai baht (0.73p) a pair.
You can see why they are doing it. Pure greed and....aaargh!
"
Date: Tuesday June 19th, 2007, 12:54 am
Your comments
We don't publish all comments submitted, but those shown will reflect the balance of comments we received. We won't publish your email address, but your name and location may appear alongside these comments online, and if they are printed in the magazine.
Comments feed | Editor-in-Chief, Matt Clarke, writes the regular Interesting Imports column on rare and unusual fish in the UK aquarium trade. He's kept fish for 30 years and holds a degree, two higher degrees and two diplomas in fish biology, taxonomy and computational biology. |
| More articles by Matt Clarke » | |
"People who stock these fish or import them into this country should be named and shamed as it is a disgraceful trade. Why members of the aquatics community would want to have these in their aquarium in their front room bafflesme. If the fish is not to your liking buy a different spp dont mutate ones that are defenceless to this."
Posted by: Ed Bailey - 2 years, 9 months agoDate: Sunday February 4th, 2007, 4:32 pm