I'll just repeat part of my comments on this subject in the other thread:
Quote:
|
...And there is no reason to have to sacrifice or ignore the well being of the inhabitants in order to have a beautiful aquascape...
|
Why does it have to be either/or?
Nothing wrong with using fish as part of an artistic aquascape (your paintstroke analogy)... in fact a lot of times the fish can make or break an aquascape. But that certainly shouldn't mean that the fish's wellbeing can be ignored. All the great aquascapers whose work I've admired (I'm not much of an aquascaper!
) spend a lot of time on the plant choice, positioning etc but would never ignore the wellbeing of the fish.
Let me put it this way: let's say as an aquascaper you find a certain chemical that brings out the perfect reddish/brown hue on a certain plant's leaves that you've been trying to get just right for ages. The aquascape would be perfectly complemented by the presence of 10 fish of species x. However, you know that this chemical will surely slowly kill these fish over a period of a month or two. What do you do? If one says that it doesn't matter as these fish are the perfect compliment to his/her art and therefore can be sacrificed for the sake of art, I'd find a lot of problems with that.
It's been a long day so maybe I'm just misunderstanding the whole discussion?
