Data: Wrong; Sustainability: Don't care; Robert Wintner: Aquarium trade should stop!

[mrhasan]

Well despite working with energy system policies and grid greening, I hate environmentalist! Here's one of the reasons why:

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2013/05/23/sea-shepherd-launches-anti-aquarium-trade-campaign-in-hawaii/?fb_action_ids=10200426032866258%2C102004260315862 26&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200426032866258%22%3A123 183504553647%2C%2210200426031586226%22%3A152501344 928784%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200426032866258%22%3A%22og .likes%22%2C%2210200426031586226%22%3A%22og.likes% 22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

These people don't have anything better to do other than creating their own views, spreading propaganda and love eating fish instead of keeping them. He keeps on saying that aquarium trade is not a part of "fishery" because (possibly) he loves eating salmon! That's not immoral but keeping fishes in aquarium is - according to Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner. While the author tried to disproof Wintner's initial claim of "Hawaii reef is dying" with scientific data which even disproves Wintner's claim of "they can go anywhere", he concludes that he thinks its "immoral" and should stop. Well just because he thinks its immoral (which is a relative term!) doesn't mean he is write and even data that are available is wrong!

And one of the strongest point of the author was "If this campaign was really about defending reefs against the most significant impacts, wouldn’t we see pictures of terrestrial runoff, coastal development, carbon producing machines, and, yes, even mask and snorkel-wielding tourists trampling Hawaii’s reefs? Instead we only see images related to aquarium fishing. Isn’t it clear what’s going on here?"

M conclusion: this guy never succeeded in keeping reef tank and hence the grudge :razz:

[Dearth]

Don't get me started on environmentalists as I have a serious hate on for them there is a place for those guys but in my world a good place for them is at the bottom of the ocean with cement shoes.

[mrhasan]

Don't get me started on environmentalists as I have a serious hate on for them there is a place for those guys but in my world a good place for them is at the bottom of the ocean with cement shoes.

Come on don't be mean on the ocean :( It has enough contamination in there :P

My grad research revolves around climate change and stuffs but there's a difference between "making a change" and "spreading crap loaded propaganda". These people are actually holding back the progress of making this world a better place. Just think what would happen if this campaign goes forth. It won't stop the trade but the whole industry will become black market "without" any "regulation"!

[Dearth]

I could go on for days and days about the subject mostly about green peace and the David Suzuki foundation both are the biggest bunch of liars and idiots out there I can speak volumes about what they have done to both improve and screw up the forest industry in which I work and their flawed logic on dying oceans and forests.

[Myka]

Snorkel Bob is ridiculous, and the fact that he's gotten as far as he has with very little evidence is outrageous.

[mrhasan]

Snorkel Bob is ridiculous, and the fact that he's gotten as far as he has with very little evidence is outrageous.

Who's snorkel bob?

[Myka]

Who's snorkel bob?

Robert Wintner.

[mrhasan]

Robert Wintner.

Oh now that line makes sense :mrgreen:

[H2o2]

the reaction that u are showing is what they want and need to keep the money coming,truth will prevail,calm knowable info is the answer .and they can have there belief even if bs as long as sticks and stone can break your bones but names will never hurt u

[naesco]

Thank God for the environmentalists in Hawaii Indonesia and the Philippines and other countries that provide fish coral and inverts for our hobby

Theses are the gals/guys who:

1. Lobby their governments against the use of cyanide and dynamite that destroys the reefs and the critters that live therein.
2. Lobby to set up marine parks to preserve breeding areas for the critters we keep. Only a dumber than dumb reefer would suggest that national parks in Canada are bad.
3. Pressure the marine industry to stop the import of impossible to keep species and very difficult to keep fish like cleaner wrasse that provide a vital cleaning job on he fish in the oceans.
4. Are the leaders in Cites and worldwide endangers precise listings.
5 pressure the government to prohibit the wholesale mining of the reef for live rock
6. Demonstrate against mining, manufacturing and oil industries to pressure them to lower water pollution so that the reefs do not die from pollution and silt infiltration

And the list goes on.

Imagine what would happen in these countries without their good work

[mrhasan]

Than God for the environmentalists in Hawaii Indonesia and the Philippines and other countries that provide fish coral and inverts for our hobby

Theses are the gals/guys who:

1. Lobby their governments against the use of cyanide and dynamite that destroys the reefs and the critters that live therein.
2. Lobby to set up marine parks to preserve breeding areas for the critters we keep. Only a dumber than dumb reefer would suggest that national parks in Canada are bad.
3. Pressure the marine industry to stop the import of impossible to keep species and very difficult to keep fish like cleaner wrasse that provide a vital cleaning job on he fish in the oceans.
4. Are the leaders in Cites and worldwide endangers precise listings.
5 pressure the government to prohibit the wholesale mining of the reef for live rock
6. Demonstrate against mining, manufacturing and oil industries to pressure them to lower water pollution so that the reefs do not die from pollution and silt infiltration

And the list goes on.

Imagine what would happen in these countries without their good work

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

[naesco]

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

Fair comment but these regulations came as a result of Greenpeace and the sponge bobs of the world forcing governments and industry to reform and change their ways

But for the environmental lobby no regulations would have happened. For example we are going to get tighter regulations on pipelines in BC which is in everyone's interest.

[Dearth]

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

Couldn't of said it any better myself Raied

I work in the pulp and paper industry and it drives me batty when the so called environmentalists say it takes 3 trees to make one piece of paper what those idiots don't tell you is no pulp mill in the world uses trees we use byproducts from the sawmills namely chips or get chips from a chipper plant very little if anything goes to waste. They use a play on words to make it sound worse than it really is.

[mrhasan]

Fair comment but these regulations came as a result of Greenpeace and the sponge bobs of the world forcing governments and industry to reform and change their ways

But for the environmental lobby no regulations would have happened. For example we are going to get tighter regulations on pipelines in BC which is in everyone's interest.

Definitely. There are obviously environmentalists who find "ways" to "solve" the problem instead of attacking it. Every profession has two sides but its just, some big names in this profession are more eager to just whip out everything which can never be a solution. For example, cyanide poisoning definitely underwent scientific researches to justify and then the concerned activist took it to promote regulation of not using cyanide. That's a solution. But what would have happened if they just said "stop catching fish all together"; that would have caused major issues. Over here, instead of stating moral issues (which can never solve problem) he could have brought in scientific research instead of "they can go anywhere"; its just not right. I have seen "proper" environmentalists attack these type of hypocrites; that tells the conclusion how things work :P

[naesco]

Definitely. There are obviously environmentalists who find "ways" to "solve" the problem instead of attacking it. Every profession has two sides but its just, some big names in this profession are more eager to just whip out everything which can never be a solution. For example, cyanide poisoning definitely underwent scientific researches to justify and then the concerned activist took it to promote regulation of not using cyanide. That's a solution. But what would have happened if they just said "stop catching fish all together"; that would have caused major issues. Over here, instead of stating moral issues (which can never solve problem) he could have brought in scientific research instead of "they can go anywhere"; its just not right. I have seen "proper" environmentalists attack these type of hypocrites; that tells the conclusion how things work :P


But the threat of no you can't do it forces a dialogue and reasonable negations and a solution

So the role 'what some may call the extreme' plays forces governments and industry to rethink when they see reasonable people also questioning

[naesco]

Couldn't of said it any better myself Raied

I work in the pulp and paper industry and it drives me batty when the so called environmentalists say it takes 3 trees to make one piece of paper what those idiots don't tell you is no pulp mill in the world uses trees we use byproducts from the sawmills namely chips or get chips from a chipper plant very little if anything goes to waste. They use a play on words to make it sound worse than it really is.

And why do you NOW use chips and why do you NOW recycle white and black liquor, use less bleach and no longer see the poisonous green chlorine plume from the stacks that was released at night that polluted your neighbourhood. Maybe that happened before your time, eh?

[Ian]

I am always amazed by so many of the "environmentalists" that get a tonne of publicity even though they are blatantly promoting some self serving agenda and using flawed science at best to further said cause.

Honestly any environmentalist that wants to really make a difference should be talking about population control. Any and all issues that this planet have are made worse by our massive population explosion. Its simple folks too many humans on the planet for the planet to manage. Either we change how we all live or we reduce our population dramatically or the planet will do it for us!

[naesco]

I am always amazed by so many of the "environmentalists" that get a tonne of publicity even though they are blatantly promoting some self serving agenda and using flawed science at best to further said cause.

Honestly any environmentalist that wants to really make a difference should be talking about population control. Any and all issues that this planet have are made worse by our massive population explosion. Its simple folks too many humans on the planet for the planet to manage. Either we change how we all live or we reduce our population dramatically or the planet will do it for us!

Overpopulation is an issue but I can't help with that problem.

But I can promote the self serving agenda of ensuring a sustainable flow of healthy fish coral and inverts for you me and future reefers.

That is why I am posting my comments in this thread. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya!

[mrhasan]

But the threat of no you can't do it forces a dialogue and reasonable negations and a solution

So the role 'what some may call the extreme' plays forces governments and industry to rethink when they see reasonable people also questioning

"No you can't do it" has to follow scientific backings instead of "personal grudges". For example, nuclear power is clearly one of the source which can easily provide world's energy demand without emission. The cost? Its the risk associated with possible explosion. Environmentalists started going against nuclear power without thinking that it has a much lower risk factor that coal mining. Instead, if they grabbed scientific researches and tried to convince the world to increment the security measures, further lower risk factors, limit the enrichment to fission grade instead of weapon grade and find cures for radiation, nuclear might not have been a "threat" and could easily replace coal plants which are, infact, more devastating. People are getting more and more aware and instead of "we have to", they are now asking "why we have to and the alternatives". Interdisciplinary researches are playing a big role now a days in green movement and not relying on personal weapons.

Lets take Wintner's case. If he promoted "captive fishes and corals" instead of trying to shut down the whole industry, it can be beneficial in every ways. And why did he attack instead of defending the scene? Because he lacks the basis on which he can strongly stand other than personal opinions. On the other hand, a marine biologist, who is also a concerned environmentalist, would be able to tackle this situation in a much sound way with "alternatives".

I am always amazed by so many of the "environmentalists" that get a tonne of publicity even though they are blatantly promoting some self serving agenda and using flawed science at best to further said cause.

Honestly any environmentalist that wants to really make a difference should be talking about population control. Any and all issues that this planet have are made worse by our massive population explosion. Its simple folks too many humans on the planet for the planet to manage. Either we change how we all live or we reduce our population dramatically or the planet will do it for us!

Haha; don't start about population :P Population will reach 10 billion one way or the other till it stabilizes :P

[mrhasan]

But I can promote the self serving agenda of ensuring a sustainable flow of healthy fish coral and inverts for you me and future reefers.


Now "that" would be a solution :) Shutting down the industry is not. It is clearly mentioned in the article that he is not concerned about "sustainability" - that's a pure BS! The world is not about stopping how it moves, you can never stop nor delay a possibility of ice age; its just how the aging of the earth works. You can just ensure you are not changing the course of nature since that can be devastating. One example: mutation :)

[naesco]

I didn't expect that you would know much about snorkel bob.
He was and is the lightning rod against the marine ornamental industry, our hobby.
He saw the fish and Coral disappear because he was in the dive/snorkel tourist business .
Our industry ignored him and continued to rape the reefs notwithstanding his offer to share the resources.
Only when he took an extreme view and got regulators involved did industry start cleaning up their act and offering solutions.
Everyone was involved in the new regulations to the betterment of the Hawaiian reefs.

[mrhasan]

I didn't expect that you would know much about snorkel bob.
He was and is the lightning rod against the marine ornamental industry, our hobby.
He saw the fish and Coral disappear because he was in the dive/snorkel tourist business .
Our industry ignored him and continued to rape the reefs notwithstanding his offer to share the resources.
Only when he took an extreme view and got regulators involved did industry start cleaning up their act and offering solutions.
Everyone was involved in the new regulations to the betterment of the Hawaiian reefs.

Is it only because of the marine industry? What about snorkeling/diving? What about CO2 sequestration? What about the ozone? Yes I don't know the history behind him but is taking things to the "extreme" always the answer? Yes marine industry did have some noticeable impact on the reef but to what extend? It seems like pet/hobby industries are always easy to blame and hence this sort of issues are always on the book.

[Reef Pilot]

I have always considered myself an environmentalist, because I love nature, whether it is hiking in the back country, or snorkeling in a tropical reef. But I don't like the extremists who want to not just regulate or protect, but stop all development, and seem to be more politically motivated, than true science based.

I once met and had the opportunity to talk to Al Gore, many years ago, when he was doing his dinner speech tours. I was quite surprised and very disappointed at his lack of knowledge of the underlying science associated with many of his popular global warning examples that he would use, especially when it came to Canada. He was great at picking up a headline and using it in a speech, without checking any facts. But when questioned (and caught), he would not engage, and like any politician, would just try to change the subject.

Don't know much about Snorkel Bob (just see his business tours everywhere), but given his business interests and like Al Gore, I suspect that it is not just the environment that he is trying to promote and protect.

Having said all that, I fully support science based based regulations and research that reduce pollution and make our planet a better place to live. I have seen the bad old days with commercial and native overfishing (some of that still happening unfortunately), loggers destroying fish streams, and miners polluting watersheds with their tailings waste. We have come a long ways from that though, and great to see the effort and progress now also with the oil companies to reduce their impact and protect the environment. And I do agree that public opinion has driven governments to implement and enforce the regulations necessary to make this happen.

But we can't go back to the cave man days, as that is what the extremists are really saying, by trying to stop everything. I do believe in sustainable development and we have to continue the research and development to keep moving forward. I believe the world is a better place (not just North America) and people everywhere have a right to try and improve their quality of life. Ironically, the extremists may actually be adding to pollution in the world, by advocating against development and resource extraction in places that are trying to reduce the impact. And indirectly then, they are supporting extraction in areas of the world that do not have the same standards and goals.

As for the reefs, I believe that we need to advance the science to protect them. But again, don't think out and out bans are the answer. The oceans and reefs are vast, and our hobby really should not have any impact. Regulation, though, is definitely necessary to prevent destruction and pillaging of such a sensitive resource. Maybe reef farms are the answer.

[mrhasan]

I have always considered myself an environmentalist, because I love nature, whether it is hiking in the back country, or snorkeling in a tropical reef. But I don't like the extremists who want to not just regulate or protect, but stop all development, and seem to be more politically motivated, than true science based.

I once met and had the opportunity to talk to Al Gore, many years ago, when he was doing his dinner speech tours. I was quite surprised and very disappointed at his lack of knowledge of the underlying science associated with many of his popular global warning examples that he would use, especially when it came to Canada. He was great at picking up a headline and using it in a speech, without checking any facts. But when questioned (and caught), he would not engage, and like any politician, would just try to change the subject.

Don't know much about Snorkel Bob (just see his business tours everywhere), but given his business interests and like Al Gore, I suspect that it is not just the environment that he is trying to promote and protect.

Having said all that, I fully support science based based regulations and research that reduce pollution and make our planet a better place to live. I have seen the bad old days with commercial and native overfishing (some of that still happening unfortunately), loggers destroying fish streams, and miners polluting watersheds with their tailings waste. We have come a long ways from that though, and great to see the effort and progress now also with the oil companies to reduce their impact and protect the environment. And I do agree that public opinion has driven governments to implement and enforce the regulations necessary to make this happen.

But we can't go back to the cave man days, as that is what the extremists are really saying, by trying to stop everything. I do believe in sustainable development and we have to continue the research and development to keep moving forward. I believe the world is a better place (not just North America) and people everywhere have a right to try and improve their quality of life. Ironically, the extremists may actually be adding to pollution in the world, by advocating against development and resource extraction in places that are trying to reduce the impact. And indirectly then, they are supporting extraction in areas of the world that do not have the same standards and goals.

As for the reefs, I believe that we need to advance the science to protect them. But again, don't think out and out bans are the answer. The oceans and reefs are vast, and our hobby really should not have any impact. Regulation, though, is definitely necessary to prevent destruction and pillaging of such a sensitive resource. Maybe reef farms are the answer.

Right to the point sir :) Nothing should be presented without scientific research/proof. Keeping this planet livable is our duty and it should not be placed on the hands of extremism.

[Reef Pilot]

I have always considered myself an environmentalist, because I love nature, whether it is hiking in the back country, or snorkeling in a tropical reef. But I don't like the extremists who want to not just regulate or protect, but stop all development, and seem to be more politically motivated, than true science based.

I once met and had the opportunity to talk to Al Gore, many years ago, when he was doing his dinner speech tours. I was quite surprised and very disappointed at his lack of knowledge of the underlying science associated with many of his popular global warning examples that he would use, especially when it came to Canada. He was great at picking up a headline and using it in a speech, without checking any facts. But when questioned (and caught), he would not engage, and like any politician, would just try to change the subject.

Don't know much about Snorkel Bob (just see his business tours everywhere), but given his business interests and like Al Gore, I suspect that it is not just the environment that he is trying to promote and protect.

Having said all that, I fully support science based based regulations and research that reduce pollution and make our planet a better place to live. I have seen the bad old days with commercial and native overfishing (some of that still happening unfortunately), loggers destroying fish streams, and miners polluting watersheds with their tailings waste. We have come a long ways from that though, and great to see the effort and progress now also with the oil companies to reduce their impact and protect the environment. And I do agree that public opinion has driven governments to implement and enforce the regulations necessary to make this happen.

But we can't go back to the cave man days, as that is what the extremists are really saying, by trying to stop everything. I do believe in sustainable development and we have to continue the research and development to keep moving forward. I believe the world is a better place (not just North America) and people everywhere have a right to try and improve their quality of life. Ironically, the extremists may actually be adding to pollution in the world, by advocating against development and resource extraction in places that are trying to reduce the impact. And indirectly then, they are supporting extraction in areas of the world that do not have the same standards and goals.

As for the reefs, I believe that we need to advance the science to protect them. But again, don't think out and out bans are the answer. The oceans and reefs are vast, and our hobby really should not have any impact. Regulation, though, is definitely necessary to prevent destruction and pillaging of such a sensitive resource. Maybe reef farms are the answer.

Just one further point, if I may....

I also believe we need to separate the moral and ethical issue of keeping fish from the reef sustainability argument. That's what seems to be driving the extremists like Snorkel Bob (and maybe Naesco), with their extreme positions on bans.

Having said that, I believe it is indeed a legitimate consideration when deciding to keep fish, especially certain species, and without the proper knowledge and methods to care for them. I have to admit that sometimes when I look at my tanks, I do think about the fish being better off back in their native reefs. But at the least, it does motivate me to provide the best possible environment I can for them.

However, I don't think it is right to use (and misuse) the sustainability argument just to promote your own ethical and moral beliefs. If that is what you believe, then make that clear. That should be enough to advocate and promote your position.

[saltcreep]

http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz41/wetpets/SeaShepherd.jpg (http://s812.photobucket.com/user/wetpets/media/SeaShepherd.jpg.html)

A shot of the Brigitte Bardot while in Tonga last year. This vessel was anchored about 400m from the collection site I was at. A little irony...

[Psyire]

As with any profession, there are people who are good at it and people who stink. Nothing new here, just media sensationalism at it's worst... again..

[daniella3d]

Well, when I see dozen of fish die in one aquarium only, it really makes me think those fish would have been better in the ocean.

It's a good thing that at least we do have a few fish that are captive bred. Efforts should be made to go in that direction and some fish should definitely not be imported as too many die too quick.

Banning fish import for aquarium trade would be nearly impossible. Economically it is not realistic. Too many business rely on this hobby, it would be really bad. Things should be regulated, but surely not banned.

I support the Sea Sheppard organization with donations each year, not sure I will keep at it now! hmmmm...

[mrhasan]

Well, when I see dozen of fish die in one aquarium only, it really makes me think those fish would have been better in the ocean.

It's a good thing that at least we do have a few fish that are captive bred. Efforts should be made to go in that direction and some fish should definitely not be imported as too many die too quick.

Banning fish import for aquarium trade would be nearly impossible. Economically it is not realistic. Too many business rely on this hobby, it would be really bad. Things should be regulated, but surely not banned.

I support the Sea Sheppard organization with donations each year, not sure I will keep at it now! hmmmm...

Right you are Daniella. Everything has the ugly side and not just the aquarium trade. It seems like taking "down" aquarium trade would be a long term commitment (not to say near impossible like you wrote) and hence a "heck lot of cash flow" for the "campaign" (wink wink). I believe the donation which goes from you to sea sheppard would be better off in research facilities to fund captive breeding. Companies like ORA, walt smith, etc. are already doing great favor not only to the hobby but also to the ocean and proper funding can take it a long way and make it more accessible instead of the funds going to "personal insights".

[TimT]

3. Pressure the marine industry to stop the import of impossible to keep species and very difficult to keep fish like cleaner wrasse that provide a vital cleaning job on he fish in the oceans.

Since I have been in the marine industry since 1999 I will respond to this.

1. 18 years ago you could not keep acropora alive. It was shipped but never survived or did well. I remember getting some cultured acros from Waikiki Aquarium and we(VMAS group order) were all very excited when they arrived alive. Even though they were about $50 each and completely brown. If corals had been banned we would not know how to culture them and grow them in aquariums or ocean based farms for reef rehab. So I personally have gone from getting very excited about getting a brown acro frag to having acros spawn in my system. Banning something just because they are supposedly poor survivors is not the solution.


2.There is a reason why cleaner wrasses from Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam are difficult to keep fish and it has nothing to do with the fish. It is almost entirely how they are caught(with cyanide), how they are packed(2.5" long fish in a 4" bag with 1/2" of water) and how they are handled by the airlines(we put your fish in the cooler as it was warmer than the warehouse or they get left baking under a hot tropical sun in Manila or Bali). Once the pet shops get the fish some are treated very well while other stores just slash the bag and dump the fish straight into the aquarium.

I personally have had cleaner wrasse look dead in the bag. Not breathing and when you touch the fish it had no response. I put the fish aside and 30 minutes later the fish is swimming and looking normal so I acclimated it. 3 weeks later I sold the fish.

In general Cleaner Wrasses from Hawaii and the South Pacific do fine while their Indo-Pacific counterparts don't have a chance. It really is all about the care and treatment of the fish from the reef to retail and not so much that they are difficult.

Cheers,
Tim

[naesco]

Since I have been in the marine industry since 1999 I will respond to this.

1. 18 years ago you could not keep acropora alive. It was shipped but never survived or did well. I remember getting some cultured acros from Waikiki Aquarium and we(VMAS group order) were all very excited when they arrived alive. Even though they were about $50 each and completely brown. If corals had been banned we would not know how to culture them and grow them in aquariums or ocean based farms for reef rehab. So I personally have gone from getting very excited about getting a brown acro frag to having acros spawn in my system. Banning something just because they are supposedly poor survivors is not the solution.


2.There is a reason why cleaner wrasses from Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam are difficult to keep fish and it has nothing to do with the fish. It is almost entirely how they are caught(with cyanide), how they are packed(2.5" long fish in a 4" bag with 1/2" of water) and how they are handled by the airlines(we put your fish in the cooler as it was warmer than the warehouse or they get left baking under a hot tropical sun in Manila or Bali). Once the pet shops get the fish some are treated very well while other stores just slash the bag and dump the fish straight into the aquarium.

I personally have had cleaner wrasse look dead in the bag. Not breathing and when you touch the fish it had no response. I put the fish aside and 30 minutes later the fish is swimming and looking normal so I acclimated it. 3 weeks later I sold the fish.

In general Cleaner Wrasses from Hawaii and the South Pacific do fine while their Indo-Pacific counterparts don't have a chance. It really is all about the care and treatment of the fish from the reef to retail and not so much that they are difficult.

Cheers,
Tim

Thank you Tim.

So your point is "Continue to import species like the the cleaner wrasse even though they have little chance of sucess because they are caught with cyanide and packed and caught poorly. When they are imported they than die in our tanks.
Considering the good work they do in the sea IMO we should not be importing them if they can't survive whether it is cyanide, shipping or the nature of the fish. (BTW I do not agree with your comment that it has nothing to do with the fish).

[SanguinesDream]

:popcorn:

[Reef Pilot]

I support the Sea Sheppard organization with donations each year, not sure I will keep at it now! hmmmm...

But then how are they going to buy the fuel to fund the Bridgitte Bardot diving excursions to inspect all the fish and coral collection sites? And they need to keep those coolers stocked, too...

[RumRunner]

WOW so this is all Roberts fault......just WOW

[kien]

All of the organisms that we harvest from the wild just simply need to evolve to survive, or they will face extinction. Plain and simple. If they can not adapt or evolve to live in a world with man's habbits, that's partly their challenge to sort out.

For the entire history of the planet, and well before mankind, species have come and gone for the exact same reasons that species are coming and going today. Climate change, loss of habitat, failure to adapt, out competed for resources, hunted to extinction by other animals, etc.

Who was there to help save the hundreds of thousands of species of dinosaurs from extinction? The mammoth? Sabre tooth tigers? Who was there to help save early homanids from extinction? Who was there to help save Neandethals from extinction?

And in fact, in all of our efforts to save species from extinction, are we not then hindering natural selection?

Survival of the fittest. Is that not the natural order of things?

Human beings are a very destructive species. But then so were so many other animals at the top of their food chain. Humans were put here by the same natural forces that put every other organism on this planet. Concepts like morality are artificial constructs that humans invented. Mother Nature knows no such thing.

[kien]

All of the organisms that we harvest from the wild just simply need to evolve to survive, or they will face extinction. Plain and simple. If they can not adapt or evolve to live in a world with man's habbits, that's partly their challenge to sort out.

For the entire history of the planet, and well before mankind, species have come and gone for the exact same reasons that species are coming and going today. Climate change, loss of habitat, failure to adapt, out competed for resources, hunted to extinction by other animals, etc.

Who was there to help save the hundreds of thousands of species of dinosaurs from extinction? The mammoth? Sabre tooth tigers? Who was there to help save early homanids from extinction? Who was there to help save Neandethals from extinction?

And in fact, in all of our efforts to save species from extinction, are we not then hindering natural selection?

Survival of the fittest. Is that not the natural order of things?

Human beings are a very destructive species. But then so were so many other animals at the top of their food chain. Humans were put here by the same natural forces that put every other organism on this planet. Concepts like morality are artificial constructs that humans invented. Mother Nature knows no such thing.

Having said all that, I totally support conservation efforts and regulatory efforts. We have the power to, so why not.

[mrhasan]

Having said all that, I totally support conservation efforts and regulatory efforts. We have the power to, so why not.

It would be interesting to see "Save the deer; stop tigers from hunting!" ;)

[SanguinesDream]

Who was there to help save Neandethals from extinction?

Rugby and ale. But in all fairness that only slowed their extinction as some still manage the chance to procreate after title wins.

[IanWR]

Let me first say how much I am enjoying a heated discussion that has not devolved completely into name calling and ad hominum attacks. Kudos all! :)

I read the original article posted and there seemed to be 2 points that I came away with: Robert Wintner is opposed to aquarium collecting ultimately on moral grounds, and Ret Talbot "suspect[s] that the fishery needs to be better managed if it is to continue to be both robust and sustainable".

I think it seems that most people would agree with point 2, everyone would like to see healthy and robust reefs in Hawaii and around the world. In that sense, I think that makes those that think that way "environmentalists", in that they see the environment as having intrinsic value and would promote actions and policies that protect reefs.

As far as point 1 goes there is little chance for consensus, but as others have pointed out, at least we can understand the position even if we do not agree with it. A similar argument is made against the fur industry: that it is immoral because it is cruel to the creatures kept and killed and is ultimately a vanity and not needed to live. Wintner is saying that unlike fishing for food, fishing for aquaria is a luxury that is not needed. I think we could agree on the point that aquaria are luxuries, if not on the morality of luxury.

As someone who fell in love with reefs after getting over my fear of the ocean and trying snorkeling, I am torn when it comes to harvesting reefs. On the one hand, I would always buy captive, local bred livestock over reef caught. Just me, but it seems different. At least I can try to give the creature the best possible home. I cannot do that for a reef caught critter, as the real ocean is better. But I do understand that by providing a way to monetize reefs for the people who live near them it gives those people incentive to maintain healthy reefs. It is complicated.

I hope everyone who is passionate about reefs, the ocean, the environment, what have you, can always try to find points of agreement and at least understand those points where there is difference. By building on consensus, and understanding (and possibly addressing) differences, real world workable solutions can be achieved.

/ end rant.

- Ian

[mrhasan]

Let me first say how much I am enjoying a heated discussion that has not devolved completely into name calling and ad hominum attacks. Kudos all! :)

I read the original article posted and there seemed to be 2 points that I came away with: Robert Wintner is opposed to aquarium collecting ultimately on moral grounds, and Ret Talbot "suspect[s] that the fishery needs to be better managed if it is to continue to be both robust and sustainable".

I think it seems that most people would agree with point 2, everyone would like to see healthy and robust reefs in Hawaii and around the world. In that sense, I think that makes those that think that way "environmentalists", in that they see the environment as having intrinsic value and would promote actions and policies that protect reefs.

As far as point 1 goes there is little chance for consensus, but as others have pointed out, at least we can understand the position even if we do not agree with it. A similar argument is made against the fur industry: that it is immoral because it is cruel to the creatures kept and killed and is ultimately a vanity and not needed to live. Wintner is saying that unlike fishing for food, fishing for aquaria is a luxury that is not needed. I think we could agree on the point that aquaria are luxuries, if not on the morality of luxury.

As someone who fell in love with reefs after getting over my fear of the ocean and trying snorkeling, I am torn when it comes to harvesting reefs. On the one hand, I would always buy captive, local bred livestock over reef caught. Just me, but it seems different. At least I can try to give the creature the best possible home. I cannot do that for a reef caught critter, as the real ocean is better. But I do understand that by providing a way to monetize reefs for the people who live near them it gives those people incentive to maintain healthy reefs. It is complicated.

I hope everyone who is passionate about reefs, the ocean, the environment, what have you, can always try to find points of agreement and at least understand those points where there is difference. By building on consensus, and understanding (and possibly addressing) differences, real world workable solutions can be achieved.

/ end rant.

- Ian

Well said Ian :) I also strongly believe that fisheries have a long way to go before considering sustainable yet.

On the other hand, almost all the concerned reefers always try to pick captive livestock (be it fish or coral) even if it cost more on two possible grounds:
1. They have a higher success rate of surviving in the tank
2. The moral ground
Captive breeding has yet to see the mainstream market because of the price but if people do move to getting more captive livestock like they are doing now, prices are bound to fall and hence this hobby, which is obviously a luxury, will become more sustainable.

On the other hand, from the point of view of wild collected corals, we do try to give them a better home, sometimes better than their wild home by taking away the threat of being eaten by something. So a moral ground can be established over here too.

All in all, solutions have to be built for problems; going against the problem is not the solution.

[naesco]

Nicely put Ian. Thank you.

[lockrookie]

I dunno I have had my cleaner wrasse for 3 years now with no issues and 6 months of that it lived in my hang on back overflow box I thought it to be long gone and only found it when I moved my tank to place my 180 in its new home. Still going strong and happy to clean me from time to time.

I do understand the impact we can have from the hobby but we also provide positive impacts as well. As Tim said if someone hadn't tried to keeps sps we wouldn't know how to now. If the cave man hadn't discovered fire..... How would we roast our marshmallows .. And lastly I doubt we are solely to blame... Why are they not going after the ppl whom eat the fish and banning them from baking their corpses in their outdoor markets just to get tossed when they expire. As hobbyists we strive to have them survive. It upsets me when I lose a pal. All in all yes some fish I won't purchase like a morish idol or anything that has the terms rare attached to it for my own conscience.

Also I won't purchase genetically modified fish or dyed fish.. Will my refusal to buy these things stop them from being sold.... Not at all

[TimT]

Naesco I don't think you understood what I was saying.

Why do you think my saying

In general Cleaner Wrasses from Hawaii and the South Pacific do fine while their Indo-Pacific counterparts don't have a chance.

is telling people to buy cyanided cleaner wrasses???? It is clearly the opposite as the cyanided ones don't have a chance while the Hawaiian and South Pacific ones do. Most people won't buy a fish they know doesn't have a chance.

When they are imported they than die in our tanks.

There are a lot of other reasons why fish die in aquariums than not being suitable for captivity.

Considering the good work they do in the sea IMO we should not be importing them if they can't survive whether it is cyanide, shipping or the nature of the fish.

Agreed that they perform a valuable function in the sea. I am aware of the study on what happens when cleaner wrasses were removed from an area. However, fish do naturally migrate to areas where there is less density of conspecifics. The populations do recover over time if the reef has not been poisoned.

(BTW I do not agree with your comment that it has nothing to do with the fish).

That's fine as this is western society and people are free to express differing opinions. My opinion is based on handling thousands of cleaner wrasses over a 14 year period from a variety of different exporters and geographical regions. What is your opinion based on?

I have personally seen the mortality rates of cleaner wrasses from Philippines and Indonesia. I have also seen the markedly lower mortality rates and better long term survivability of South Pacific and Hawaiian cleaner wrasses. Obviously there are other factors at play than a supposed unsuitability to captivity.

Cheers,
Tim

[Dearth]

The sad reality is we humans are natures biggest threat and have and will cause the mass extinction of many species no matter how hard we try to conservate them.

I am a new comer to the SW world and in the year I've been in it many things have been changed in the hobby some for the better some for the worse the fact remains we are an insatiable species wanting to collect and showcase rare and unusual species. Personally I cannot see spending huge money on a fish that may or may not live long and then the constant worry of the what ifs.

I am all for captive bred fish and coral but unlike fresh water species SW FIsh and coral tend to be much more fickle and captive breeding of many species of SW fish is a crap shoot at best hence the wild capture plus the unscrupulous people are many and their appetite is huge.

It's unlikely we will see the trend change for many yrs if ever but one way to help is to promote captive bred fish and coral over wild caught stock. Another way is tighter regulation of stores that sell SW live stock but in both cases it takes cooperation and willingness to change and that takes money and educating the masses correctly not by shock and awe as both sides of the debate love to do creating deep and often misleading information.

[TimT]

Well said Ian.

There is another side of the equation that Wintner is missing.

Wintner is saying that unlike fishing for food, fishing for aquaria is a luxury that is not needed. I think we could agree on the point that aquaria are luxuries, if not on the morality of luxury.

I agree that for us an aquaria is a luxury. But to the divers collecting for us, our luxuries are a means to feed their families. Especially when they have over fished the food fish stocks to the point of no recovery. I think this industry can help a lot of people in the developing world if it is done correctly.

Cheers,
Tim

[BlueAbyss]

Let me first say how much I am enjoying a heated discussion that has not devolved completely into name calling and ad hominum attacks. Kudos all! :)
- Ian

Been trolling since my tank went down but ^ +1.

Also a semi-local craft paper mill logs and uses trees from my area. Not chips or leftovers, they cut and use good sized jack pine and white spruce. Just thought people should know, I see a lot of logging trucks on my local roads.

[Reef Pilot]

I hope everyone who is passionate about reefs, the ocean, the environment, what have you, can always try to find points of agreement and at least understand those points where there is difference. By building on consensus, and understanding (and possibly addressing) differences, real world workable solutions can be achieved.

Ha ha... maybe they should send you over to Beirut...

I think our building on consensus is pretty good on Canreef,... too good actually,... and sometimes newbies are led down the wrong path. That's why it's good to also discuss our differences.

But I prefer to use direct experience (and listen to others with their direct experiences) to state my case, rather than just see quotes or references to others on the internet. People who just disagree (or agree) and can't back up what they are saying don't have a lot of credibility with me.

[kien]

Wintner is saying that unlike fishing for food, fishing for aquaria is a luxury that is not needed. I think we could agree on the point that aquaria are luxuries, if not on the morality of luxury.

Indeed, I think we all understand and agree that our hobby is a luxury. Taking that notion a step further, I believe that mankind has based most of his existence on luxuries. If we roll the clock back a few hundred thousand years we will find our very first few luxury items, the controlled use of fire and primitive tools. There was a time when we existed without such things so in fact, they were not requirements for life. They simple made living easier and more luxurious.

From there we had opened Pandora's box and nearly everything in our history from that point can be attributed to luxurious living. The animals that we domesticated with the help of our tools. The paper that we invented to write on. The animals that we slaughtered for clothing and housing. The vast stretches of land we claimed to grow food or cotton for the clothes on our backs. The giant holes that we dig into the ground to harvest metals or dig up oil to fuel our cars, planes, boats or manufacture plastics and rubber for the shoes on our feet. The rivers that we dam up to power our cell phones and internets. These are all luxuries. Is riding your bike really "green" ? How did your bike come to be? Did it organically spring from the earth?

The luxury and impact of marine aquaria is just a drop of water in a tidal wave of human impact.

[Reef Pilot]

Indeed, I think we all understand and agree that our hobby is a luxury. Taking that notion a step further, I believe that mankind has based most of his existence on luxuries. If we roll the clock back a few hundred thousand years we will find our very first few luxury items, the controlled use of fire and primitive tools. There was a time when we existed without such things so in fact, they were not requirements for life. They simple made living easier and more luxurious.

From there we had opened Pandora's box and nearly everything in our history from that point can be attributed to luxurious living. The animals that we domesticated with the help of our tools. The paper that we invented to write on. The animals that we slaughtered for clothing and housing. The vast stretches of land we claimed to grow food or cotton for the clothes on our backs. The giant holes that we dig into the ground to harvest metals or dig up oil to fuel our cars, planes, boats or manufacture plastics and rubber for the shoes on our feet. The rivers that we dam up to power our cell phones and internets. These are all luxuries. Is riding your bike really "green" ? How did your bike come to be? Did it organically spring from the earth?

The luxury and impact of marine aquaria is just a drop of water in a tidal wave of human impact.
+1.... And this will just continue,... until the next asteroid hits... In the meantime, I'll keep enjoying my reefing, flying, biking, hiking, etc, etc....

[BlueAbyss]

Didn't have time to post further this morning, was on my way to work.

I think that taking all of this into account is difficult for the average person. It's often extremely difficult, especially in our consumerist society, to see the impact that buying one product over another has on the world at large. I often feel that environmentalists fail to see the larger picture or that their scope is too narrow, insofar as saying "the ornamental aquatic industry is destroying our reefs". That's like saying cows are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer (anyone heard of the ozone layer lately?).

All species benefit from conservation, the average person should be able to see that. But wait, I'm speaking from my own point of view... a person living in a much poorer country may not see the world in the same light as I do. The guy trying to feed his family while leading a rather dangerous life on a shrimp trawler probably doesn't think about the barren wasteland he leaves behind. He thinks about his family, the dangers of his profession... and his paycheck. And I feel for him, whether I support him or not. That said, I'm careful about where my shrimp comes from and I don't eat shrimp often.

I'm also aware of the fact that everything has what I call an 'oil price'. In my case, everything has a much higher 'oil price' because I live fairly remote. I have yet to have livestock shipped in on a plane, but the time is coming... and I'm acutely aware of the price paid for the kerosene to run the jet engines. It's cheaper than driving to Saskatoon... but probably just as bad for the environment.

Environmentalists (and also groups like PTA that border on the absurd at some times) need a wider scope. The reefs are linked to the forest, the earth connects with the sky etc etc... and killing off the aquarium industry will NOT stop the destruction of the reefs and oceans.

End rant. Looks like something that should have been in the lounge :twised:

[Simons]

everyone has a part to play in responsible fish/reef keepers. We just need to make informed decisions based on the best available information at the time.

While I generally agree with most conservation efforts, I draw the line at 'bans' and poor science in the hopes of getting sound bites on the evening news.

[naesco]

Naesco I don't think you understood what I was saying.

Why do you think my saying



is telling people to buy cyanided cleaner wrasses???? It is clearly the opposite as the cyanided ones don't have a chance while the Hawaiian and South Pacific ones do. Most people won't buy a fish they know doesn't have a chance.



There are a lot of other reasons why fish die in aquariums than not being suitable for captivity.



Agreed that they perform a valuable function in the sea. I am aware of the study on what happens when cleaner wrasses were removed from an area. However, fish do naturally migrate to areas where there is less density of conspecifics. The populations do recover over time if the reef has not been poisoned.



That's fine as this is western society and people are free to express differing opinions. My opinion is based on handling thousands of cleaner wrasses over a 14 year period from a variety of different exporters and geographical regions. What is your opinion based on?

I have personally seen the mortality rates of cleaner wrasses from Philippines and Indonesia. I have also seen the markedly lower mortality rates and better long term survivability of South Pacific and Hawaiian cleaner wrasses. Obviously there are other factors at play than a supposed unsuitability to captivity.

Cheers,
Tim

My opinion is based on 24 years as a hobbyist. I am not in the industry so my opinion is not biased.

I have visited marine collectors and wholesalers in Indonesia and they confirmed what you have already stated. Indonesia cleaner wrasse rarely survive. They know this.

You say but Hawaiian cleaner wrasse are not a problem. I disagree with you totally.

Attached is a portion of a thread on a USL Unsuitable Species List discussion.



Re: Unsuitable list, bah - what about a 'collect to order' list?
Postby sdcfish » February 6th, 2010, 6:30 pm
Thales,
Also....these issues are simply regulating themselves by the economics of trading in hard to keep species.

Not many fish are going to be sold if they are difficult to keep. It starts with the collector and then travels right down the line. Let's take Hawaiian cleaner wrasse for example. We might have sold 1 all year long if that. I speak to the collectors and make sure they know not to collect them!

We do the same in other regions as well.
I know there are people/groups out there that would love to see some regulation on certain species, but it's really not necessary in my opinion.
I still believe that the SMART program will take care of the concerns of those pushing for regulation. Working on quotas that are comprised from MAQTRAC, everyone will know that the numbers collected per specie are sustainable.
In the meantime, the majority of the industry can continue to keep difficult species to a minium.
Regards,
Eric

Tim you know Eric one of the largest marine fish importers in the USA. His company is Sea Dwelling Creatures. As the above thread shows Eric uses Hawaiian cleaner wrasse as an example of a fish that should not be collected due to its poor survival rate. Eric is a respected industry person

Attached is an article in wetwebmedia.com by Robert Fenner and accomplished expert in fish and recognized as such.

Reefers need to make their own opinion based on facts/

[jorjef]

I have a fake Christmas tree, I feel bad...... please continue :deadhorse:

[naesco]

Don't know what happened but here is Robert Fenners opinion


Cleaner Wrasses in the Genus Labroides


Bob Fenner


Labroides dimidiatus and a Bicolor Parrotfish, Red Sea

For a number of good reasons there are a many varieties f livestock that are unsuitable for captivity. Specialized diets, growing to too large a size, easy susceptibility to disease, poor adjustment to aquarium conditions, being too dangerous, too rare, or performing a needed function in the wild among other traits preclude certain species being attractive to aquarists.

Unfortunately this list includes specimens that are regularly offered to the hobby. Why? The answer not surprisingly is someone will buy them. I would like to believe that mainstream aquarists are an informed, conscientious lot dealing from a position of knowledge with intelligent, honest dealers, wholesalers, transhippers... all the way back to the collectors and breeders. Alas, I must be dreaming. How much do any of us know re what we do? Is it enough to have the means and desire to "buy" what you want?

What I fully suspect is that most folks assume that the livestock available is generally okay for aquarium care. Sure, of course some kinds of wet pets are easier to keep, feed and breed than others; and within a species some individuals are more or less robust than average. But are you willing to purchase livestock that on average only lives a few weeks? How about consideration of the "cost" to the environment of it's collection?

My beef here is the issues of:

1) Offering inappropriate specimens that have little chance of living any quality of life for any quantity of time, &

2) The taking of these more challenging species from the wild,

3) Loss of "beneficial" species from the wild, and

4) The gall, greed and ignorance of mis- and lack of information that produces and perpetuates this activity.

Is this a big deal? I think so. There are too many fishes and invertebrates being lost within a short period of time; too much blame being placed on "cyanide", poor water quality, and other causes, when the plain fact is that much of this life should not have been removed in the first place. The attrition rate of ornamental aquatics hobbyists is atrocious, but can you justify staying in an interest with so much "anomalous" loss? Must we wait till governmental regulation shuts down our diversion on reports of high habitat damage and consequent captive mortality?

I say no. There are many organisms suitable for aquarium use whose taking have negligible deleterious effect on natural environs. For every million cardinal tetras taken for the ornamental trade there are billions that die, dried up in seasonal pools.

In considering this essay I came up with two principal counter-points; there is no clear yes/no answer to what constitutes aquarium-suitable or not, and secondly that without trying "difficult" species the field of aquaristics will not, cannot advance...

To the first of these I agree. There are dangerous species like the blue-ringed octopus and Stonefishes, too large species like the Napoleon wrasse (getting to three meters!), touchy coral-eating butterfly fishes, etc. that historically sustain high mortalities, nearly one hundred percent with a few weeks. Few in the know would argue that ribbon morays, Moorish idols, wild percula clowns, et alia are hardy aquarium fare. Whereas, on the other end of the spectrum there are typical hardy species and many gray area types and sizes. So where do we draw the line? Should all pet fish be tank bred? Maybe limited to those unable to exist as exotics in local waters? That would really limit what's available.

Where would we be without people trying and reproducing successive generations of wild discus (Symphysodon), freshwater angels, even mollies? The original breeding stock of numerous species were problematic when first introduced. Happily there were enterprising folks who persevered through heavy losses in the beginning of their domestication and determined proper living conditions, diet, feeding, disease control and reproductive biology. Perhaps today's tricky species will be tomorrow's achievements; it is certain we will not learn without using and losing specimens.

A weaker argument still could be advanced for utilizing questionable stock; for the benefit of native peoples' collecting efforts. That is, whatever they are capable of providing the trade furthers their income, and may even "flatten" predator/prey relations.

Again, my principal gripe with easily lost, endangered, and dangerous captives is the issue of informed consent. Is the consumer making intelligent decisions in casting their vote with their monetary investment in these species? Much too frequently, no. Often, color, pattern, mesmerizing motion, dearth of selection and fear of lack drive an aquarist to "try" a new specimen on impulse. Are the retailers to blame? Very little in my estimation. The end user, ourselves as the ultimate consumers are all-powerful in providing the cash that drives the market; we decide what is successfully offered.

What do I propose to help remedy these fatalities? In a word EDUCATION. When we as the controllers of the market make better choices due to enhanced awareness, there is a shift in market pressures. Allow me this anecdote to illustrate: As a boy I spent time in the Philippines diving and collecting ornamental tropicals. It's amazing to me how many types of livestock we would pass over that seemed plentiful, easy to catch, pretty, hardy, and interested in eating even the fecal material of other fishes... As a novice pet-fisherman I would gather some of these and bring them on-board. My companions would laugh and either eat or pour these unwanted specimens over the side. When I protested saying these would make excellent choices for aquaria they would invariably tell me that "theses fishes are not on the list" , and therefore the agents between us and Manila's wholesale houses would not pay much or anything for them. Ah ha! Is this point clear? Foremost in collectors minds is catching "money" not livestock. If there is no demand, they will not fish for it.

So, Finally the Wrasses in the Genus Labroides!

This is the genus of obligate Cleaner Wrasses most celebrated for establishing stations in the wild that are frequented by "local" reef fishes and pelagics for removing parasites and necrotic tissue. Perhaps shocking to most aquarists, all the Labroides rate a dismal (3) in survivability, even the ubiquitously offered common or Blue Cleaner Wrasse, Labroides dimidiatus. None of the Labroides should be removed, not only for the fact that almost all perish within a few weeks of wild capture, but for the valuable role they play as cleaners.

Let's get to the fishes to avoid for this installment, and the rationale, or at least offer you my opinions on what it might take to keep them successfully for those who can't be outright dissuaded in their use.

The wrasse family Labridae is well known to aquarists. They are common, often colorful marine reef fishes of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. This is one of the most diversified of all fish families. Size spans a few inches to nearly ten feet; (Cheilinus undulatus, the Napoleon) now, that's a wrasse!

Like the freshwater cichlids, wrasses have protractile mouths, a feature affording great flexibility in prey range and manipulation. There are some four to six hundred legitimate described species; the variable number due to oft-made discoveries of amazing range of structure and color within a species on the basis of sex and size. Check out the photo offerings in Burgess, Axelrod and Hunziker's Atlas of Marine Fishes pages 423-477 for examples of striking differences between juveniles, adults, males and females. Things get even more bizarre when you consider that many wrasses are known to change sex, and that internal physical/structural changes parallel external appearances. Some ichthyological anatomists have likened the diversity in the morphology of wrasse skulls to that of all the bony fishes combined. Take a look at the jaws of California's own Sheephead, Semicossyphus pulcher.

On with the issue at hand. One of the wrasse family's fifty eight genera is Labroides, with five described species. The most commonly available is the black, blue and white lined Labroides dimidiatus; the other four have other colors, cost much more money (a few to several tens of dollars U.S.) and should not be offered to the hobby, or encouraged to be so by their purchase.

[gobytron]

I kind of agree with Robert.
Eating is a lot more important than the material satisfaction we get from keeping aquariums.

We play a HUGE role in the destruction of our ocean ecosystems...and forget about the huge wasters of water and power this hobby creates out of all of us.

Personally, while I wouldn't be happy about it, I think it would make a lot of sense to ban aquarium keeping entirely.

[jorjef]

THAT'S IT I'M RETURNING THE MONKEY TO THE PET STORE.....

[Dearth]

That is why tank bred fish and coral should be put on the forefront they tend to be much hardier and the likely hood of tank crashes are diminished reducing mass death

[gobytron]

That's probably the second best option, banning of all wild caught fish, coral and collection of Live Rock.

[Dearth]

THAT'S IT I'M RETURNING THE MONKEY TO THE PET STORE.....

I think your stuck with the monkey heard there was a no return policy on monkeys :biggrin:

[kien]

THAT'S IT I'M RETURNING THE MONKEY TO THE PET STORE.....

If our planet could talk I bet it would be saying the exact same thing.

[jorjef]

If our planet could talk I bet it would be saying the exact same thing.

Damn you evolution!!!

[kien]

Damn you evolution!!!

Planet Earth: Let them evolve they said. It'll be fun they said. FRAK!
Venus, Mars: LOL !!!

[SanguinesDream]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=948Nm34arfA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D948Nm34arfA

RIP dude.

[Myka]

I support the Sea Sheppard organization with donations each year, not sure I will keep at it now! hmmmm...

I'm not sure if they accept donations, but you could check out Reef Culture Technologies (http://www.rcthawaii.com/) based in Hawaii and managed by Frank Baensch. RCT works to develop culture techniques for captive breeding of reef fishes.

[Myka]

That is why tank bred fish and coral should be put on the forefront they tend to be much hardier and the likely hood of tank crashes are diminished reducing mass death

The trouble is that it often costs more money to raise captive bred fish than it costs to import wild caught fish. Captive bred fish are a renewable resource, but so many people care too little to pay a few bucks more. Fish like Angelfish, Tangs, and Basslets involve such a lengthy rearing time that a reasonable captive bred cost is not very likely except maybe at large facilities where quantity of fish produced could decrease the per fish cost.

You have the LFS owner who can't see past dollar signs (although for good reason). He sees the wild caught fish for half the price on the fish list and can't seem to grasp the fact that landed cost (shipping, permits, losses) will often make a basic captive bred fish cheaper, like Clownfish, Dottybacks, Seahorses, Gobies, Blennies, Cardinals, and even Mandarins. He refuses to pay a reasonable price for the captive bred fish so few small scale captive breeding programs actually have any sort of profit. Most of the LFS owners involved here on CanReef tend to be fairly advanced, and more open to small scale captive breeding programs.

You have the typical reefer who, on average, has been in the hobby for 18 months. He has been dumping money into his system for 18 months now and sees a wild caught fish for a few bucks cheaper than a captive bred fish. Having been in the hobby for only 18 months he doesn't understand the pros and cons of captive bred VS wild caught fish. He just wants the cheaper fish.

Of course there are exceptions to every "rule" and people are starting to change, but it takes time, and it takes people talking. Getting new up-to-date information to LFS owners (hey some of them are still in the 80s) and reef keepers by having more people care enough to share sustainability concerns is fundamental.

All or nothing resolves little and provides no progressive action.

[Dearth]

The trouble is that it often costs more money to raise captive bred fish than it costs to import wild caught fish. Captive bred fish are a renewable resource, but so many people care too little to pay a few bucks more. Fish like Angelfish, Tangs, and Basslets involve such a lengthy rearing time that a reasonable captive bred cost is not very likely except maybe at large facilities where quantity of fish produced could decrease the per fish cost.

You have the LFS owner who can't see past dollar signs (although for good reason). He sees the wild caught fish for half the price on the fish list and can't seem to grasp the fact that landed cost (shipping, permits, losses) will often make a basic captive bred fish cheaper, like Clownfish, Dottybacks, Seahorses, Gobies, Blennies, Cardinals, and even Mandarins. He refuses to pay a reasonable price for the captive bred fish so few small scale captive breeding programs actually have any sort of profit. Most of the LFS owners involved here on CanReef tend to be fairly advanced, and more open to small scale captive breeding programs.

You have the typical reefer who, on average, has been in the hobby for 18 months. He has been dumping money into his system for 18 months now and sees a wild caught fish for a few bucks cheaper than a captive bred fish. Having been in the hobby for only 18 months he doesn't understand the pros and cons of captive bred VS wild caught fish. He just wants the cheaper fish.

Of course there are exceptions to every "rule" and people are starting to change, but it takes time, and it takes people talking. Getting new up-to-date information to LFS owners (hey some of them are still in the 80s) and reef keepers by having more people care enough to share sustainability concerns is fundamental.

All or nothing resolves little and provides no progressive action.


Well put but I guess I am an exception to the rule as having been a freshie for 12 yrs I learned to go tank bred where I could it saved me a ton of money in the long run

[gobytron]

This is why the choice SHOULD be taken out of people's hands...

[Bayside Corals]

You have the LFS owner who can't see past dollar signs (although for good reason). He sees the wild caught fish for half the price on the fish list and can't seem to grasp the fact that landed cost (shipping, permits, losses) will often make a basic captive bred fish cheaper, like Clownfish, Dottybacks, Seahorses, Gobies, Blennies, Cardinals, and even Mandarins. He refuses to pay a reasonable price for the captive bred fish so few small scale captive breeding programs actually have any sort of profit. Most of the LFS owners involved here on CanReef tend to be fairly advanced, and more open to small scale captive breeding programs.

Actually I don't think this is true. In most cases it's up to the customer. The LFS will bring in what the customer wants. The fact is, the LFS pays more for the captive bred clowns versus the wild caught clowns. So they charge more for the captive bred ones because they pay more. The customer walks into the store and sees a cheap clown fish and they see a more expensive one that looks identical. Some customers will ask questions on why this clown is more than the other one and some customers won't. Some customers once informed will buy the more expensive captive bred clown but some still will not. I can guarantee that if every customer choose only to buy captive bred fish and nothing else. That every LFS would have a fully stocked line of what ever captive bred fish was available to them. At the end of the day the customers make the decisions on what the LFS brings in. If the customers don't buy the LFS goes out of business.

[saltcreep]

The trouble is that it often costs more money to raise captive bred fish than it costs to import wild caught fish. Captive bred fish are a renewable resource, but so many people care too little to pay a few bucks more. Fish like Angelfish, Tangs, and Basslets involve such a lengthy rearing time that a reasonable captive bred cost is not very likely except maybe at large facilities where quantity of fish produced could decrease the per fish cost.

Not necessarily. The scale of the operation is just larger and may not allow for a unit cost decrease in the production of the fish. The costs for many species of fish would still be far above what the average consumer would be willing to spend.

You have the LFS owner who can't see past dollar signs (although for good reason). He sees the wild caught fish for half the price on the fish list and can't seem to grasp the fact that landed cost (shipping, permits, losses) will often make a basic captive bred fish cheaper, like Clownfish, Dottybacks, Seahorses, Gobies, Blennies, Cardinals, and even Mandarins. He refuses to pay a reasonable price for the captive bred fish so few small scale captive breeding programs actually have any sort of profit. Most of the LFS owners involved here on CanReef tend to be fairly advanced, and more open to small scale captive breeding programs.

The LFS owner needs to keep the dollar signs in sight. If they don't, and I've seen it first hand, they are done. They run a business to make a profit. To some, the distribution chain of these animals simply don't make it beneficial (from a financial sense) to purchase them.

As for refusing to pay a "reasonable price", what does that mean? A LFS will refuse to pay a price if that price is at or above a price point where they cannot sell that product for a reasonable return (if at all). This isn't a charity.

You have the typical reefer who, on average, has been in the hobby for 18 months. He has been dumping money into his system for 18 months now and sees a wild caught fish for a few bucks cheaper than a captive bred fish. Having been in the hobby for only 18 months he doesn't understand the pros and cons of captive bred VS wild caught fish. He just wants the cheaper fish.

This is what the average reefer is all about, period. I want it cheaper. Here is a quote from some time ago, but I think for the general reefing public, this sentiment holds true today and can be applied to the wild collected versus the captive bred argument.

"Lets face it, how many of us would pay $99 for a guaranteed NON cyanide caught fish when we can get the same fish with out knowing the real history for $49.... I don't know about you but, my pocket book would certainly over ride the moral dilema of purchasing fish that MAY have been cyanide caught."

The one important factor that you, and others address, is that if wild collection was banned, the industry would collapse. There are not enough species available and actual numbers of those fish to sustain the industry. Period.

[Myka]

This is why the choice SHOULD be taken out of people's hands...

That's probably the second best option, banning of all wild caught fish, coral and collection of Live Rock.

If that's really how you feel, how do you justify being in the hobby? Is it one of those, "I will do it for as long as I'm allowed, even though I think it is wrong." sort of things for you?

[Maybe we should quit drilling for oil too?]

What about the millions of people who feed their families from their profits in the aquarium trade?

[You better get rid of all man-made plastics and fibers too; carpet, shoes, furniture, clothing, curtains, picture frames, stereos, TVs, canned foods, cars, cell phones, fridges, furnaces...]

In the past fish were caught with cyanide, blasting, and physically breaking apart the reef structures to catch fish. Nowadays, these things still happen but they are frowned upon and people are changing their ways. Indigenous peoples are learning about sustainable collection so there will still be species to collect in the decades to come.

I believe regulation is the answer. Not only does regulation create jobs rather than removing jobs, it also creates a sustainable practice.

Food fishing, cattle farming, oilfields...they are all much bigger problems than the aquarium trade, and all of these challenges affect the oceans and reefs more than collection does.

[saltcreep]

If that's really how you feel, how do you justify being in the hobby? Is it one of those, "I will do it for as long as I'm allowed, even though I think it is wrong." sort of things for you?

[Maybe we should quit drilling for oil too?]

What about the millions of people who feed their families from their profits in the aquarium trade?

[You better get rid of all man-made plastics and fibers too; carpet, shoes, furniture, clothing, curtains, picture frames, stereos, TVs, canned foods, cars, cell phones, fridges, furnaces...]

In the past fish were caught with cyanide, blasting, and physically breaking apart the reef structures to catch fish. Nowadays, these things still happen but they are frowned upon and people are changing their ways. Indigenous peoples are learning about sustainable collection so there will still be species to collect in the decades to come.

I believe regulation is the answer. Not only does regulation create jobs rather than removing jobs, it also creates a sustainable practice.

Food fishing, cattle farming, oilfields...they are all much bigger problems than the aquarium trade, and all of these challenges affect the oceans and reefs more than collection does.

All straw man arguments.

This is simply about the impact the aquarium trade is having on the reefs. It is well understood that the impact by the trade is far less than those that you and others have stated. The fact still remains there is an impact. So what to do?

The answer is not an outright ban, but it comes down to sustainability. Easier said than done, but it can be done. There have been major strides made in a number of areas, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

[albert_dao]

You have the LFS owner who can't see past dollar signs (although for good reason). He sees the wild caught fish for half the price on the fish list and can't seem to grasp the fact that landed cost (shipping, permits, losses) will often make a basic captive bred fish cheaper, like Clownfish, Dottybacks, Seahorses, Gobies, Blennies, Cardinals, and even Mandarins. He refuses to pay a reasonable price for the captive bred fish so few small scale captive breeding programs actually have any sort of profit. Most of the LFS owners involved here on CanReef tend to be fairly advanced, and more open to small scale captive breeding programs.


Are you implicating that the typical small business owner has not even the slightest notion regarding their own finances? That is a ridiculous and heavy handed assessment of the situation! Where's your evidence? Cite your sources?

No, they do not land at the same price. No, they are not identical looking animals.

Allow me to illustrate:

Typical captive-bred orchid dottyback

http://www.liveaquaria.com/images/categories/product/p-90003-fridmani.jpg

http://www.toofishy.com/images/T/orchid_lg.jpg


Typical wild-caught orchid dottyback

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/custom/images/medium/4c9b6fc85fb00.jpg

http://www.exoticsaltwaterinnovations.com/orchiddotty.jpg


Typical captive-bred fang blenny

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Meiacanthus-grammistes.jpg

http://www.orafarm.com/images/products/fish/blennies/blackline_lg.jpg



Typical wild-caught fang blenny

http://www.masterfisch.de/951-198-thickbox/zebra-schleimfisch.jpg

http://www.showyourfishes.com/fish_breed_photos/Poison-fang_blenny.jpg


There is a noticeable and obvious difference in quality between these samples. This is even more obvious in the most ubiquitous captive-bred marine fish of them all, the clownfish. Next time you're looking at a CB clownfish that isn't a $300+ Grade A Picasso or whatever, look at its gills and the profile of its head. More often than not, they'll be flared and notched, in that order.

I'm all for captive rearing and all and there are definitely a few farms out there that push out high quality stock (Sustainable Aquatics in Jefferson City, TN is one of them), but the vast majority (I'm looking at you, ORA) don't seem to care about letting out only top quality fish if they're not worth triple digits. This is something that should not be supported any more than one would support a puppy mill. Yes, I'm going there. Ethics all-in.

Tack onto this that the average LANDED price (no, not every city has access to a local breeder) is often 1.5-10x higher than the LANDED price of a WC animal and you'll be quick to conclude what the "true" motivations of a typical LFS owner are.

[Myka]

And Snorkel Bob? He doesn't have clean hands either...

I've seen divers and snorkelers and dive shop owners damage the reef many times. I've seen them run their boats onto the reefs, I've seen them break corals, take them out of the water, or otherwise disturb them. I've heard them joking around about terrible things they have done and shown no remorse. They feed the fish unhealthy foods. Should we ban snorkeling and diving too?

Sunbathers on the beach bring gallons and gallons of sunscreen and tanning oils into the water. They trample the reefs and scare the fish. Maybe we should ban this too?

Let's not even bother to talk about the animal farming on land producing waste that runs off into the oceans or the food farming where fertilizers have made soil so salty it won't even grow plants anymore. Guess where those phosphate laden waters run off to?

My point is, the aquarium trade is a drop of water in a large puddle.

[Myka]

Are you implicating that the typical small business owner has not even the slightest notion regarding their own finances? That is a ridiculous and heavy handed assessment of the situation! Where's your evidence? Cite your sources?

Many of them yes. The old school thought is to make money off the dry goods and the livestock just draw people in. Many aquarium stores expect and take a loss on livestock. Box stores and mom and pop "pet stores" tend to be in this category.

Evidence and sources? I don't think they will let me show you their price lists, losses, and finances. :lol:

No, they do not land at the same price. No, they are not identical looking animals.
There is a noticeable and obvious difference in quality between these samples. This is even more obvious in the most ubiquitous captive-bred marine fish of them all, the clownfish. Next time you're looking at a CB clownfish that isn't a $300+ Grade A Picasso or whatever, look at its gills and the profile of its head. More often than not, they'll be flared and notched, in that order.

I'm all for captive rearing and all and there are definitely a few farms out there that push out high quality stock (Sustainable Aquatics in Jefferson City, TN is one of them), but the vast majority (I'm looking at you, ORA) don't seem to care about letting out only top quality fish if they're not worth triple digits. This is something that should not be supported any more than one would support a puppy mill. Yes, I'm going there. Ethics all-in. ORA is often chided for very poor culling practices. Many of the defects that are commonly seen in Clownfish are not genetic, rather poor culturing conditions. Even something as simple as misbarring is controlled with diet and water quality.

Good quality rearing techniques provide specimens of wild caught quality. Take Sustainable Aquatics for example. Compare a SA Clownfish to an ORA Clownfish...there is no comparison. The SA Clownfish is many times nicer than an ORA Clownfish. I have both wild caught and captive bred Orchid Dottybacks, and if I didn't tell you which one was which you would never know. Sure, there are terrible examples of captive bred fish out there, but there are also excellent examples.

[msjboy]

I think the marine fish hobby is expensive so it will be a barrier to entry for those who would care less if the livestock was any cheaper....the hobby will get even more expensive if there is qoutas or if they are all tank bred which again might be a good thing for nature proponents.

If we were abound in ref fish and cheap, i think we would have a lot more mass dieoff as people do not care. I think many people buy goldfish and they end up dead in a few months foe example,....only a few studiuos person will,ake effort to keep their stock alive instead of just replacing it

I remember when red ear turtles were $1 each at stores...and because of it, people dumped them, killed a lot by letting kids take care of it and so on. Also pet monkeys were readily available but no more....will corals and marine fish come to this...i cant say.

Msjboy

[albert_dao]

Many of them yes. The old school thought is to make money off the dry goods and the livestock just draw people in. Many aquarium stores expect and take a loss on livestock. Box stores and mom and pop "pet stores" tend to be in this category.


What? As an employee of dry goods wholesaler/manufacturer, I would most assuredly appreciate it if you pointed me towards these dry goods-do gooders. Barring that, I must strongly disagree. With any store worth its salt (tee hee), the exact opposite is true. Most stores rely on their livestock to carry their bottom line. Why? Because they don't want to compete in the same arena with the "big boys", businesses that have a lot of capital invested into their online marketplace and dry goods inventory. It's just not worth it to grind out the 20-35% margin vs. 100-500%+ (frags) margin on livestock.

Want some evidence? Take a look at some of the more respected businesses Stateside:

http://www.worldwidecorals.com/

http://www.aquatouch.com/index.html

http://www.vividaquariums.com/

etc, etc... Compare their livestock sections to their dry goods sections. These guys are simply not interested in competing with the likes or Premium Aquatics or BRS. Well, guess what, there are a hundred times more of these sorts of businesses than there are Premiums or BRS's. In Canada, one need look no further than J&L Aquatics vs. the world to see that the trend is reiterative rather than unique. J&L, Premium, BRS, etc have all done an incredible job of securing their place within the industry and, in doing so, have carved out a designation for most of the other businesses to make their niche (livestock).

Evidence and sources? I don't think they will let me show you their price lists, losses, and finances. :lol:

Then I suppose we come to a standstill. If possible, I am hesitant to make a call to authority, but in this case, it is warranted; I have a fairly wide bird's eye view of the industry and your impression is the exception rather than the rule.

ORA is often chided for very poor culling practices. Many of the defects that are commonly seen in Clownfish are not genetic, rather poor culturing conditions. Even something as simple as misbarring is controlled with diet and water quality.

ORA is representative of the CB livestock sectional.

Good quality rearing techniques provide specimens of wild caught quality. Take Sustainable Aquatics for example. Compare a SA Clownfish to an ORA Clownfish...there is no comparison. The SA Clownfish is many times nicer than an ORA Clownfish. I have both wild caught and captive bred Orchid Dottybacks, and if I didn't tell you which one was which you would never know. Sure, there are terrible examples of captive bred fish out there, but there are also excellent examples.

Again, your fish/experience is the exception, not the rule.

[gobytron]

To be honest, it's because I feel at this point, anything is going to be too little too late.

At the end of the day, I firmly believe we won't have much in the way of marine aquatic life sometime in the next 50 years.

Whether its global warming or acidification the signs are already apparent that this is a sick ecosystem...

Short of some technological miracle solution...we're probably the last reefers one way or the other...


Do you really think millions of people feed their families from this hobby?

That's a lot more than I would guess.

[Myka]

I have a fairly wide bird's eye view of the industry and your impression is the exception rather than the rule.

For crap sake Albert, I clearly stated I was talking about mom and pop and box stores. Yeesh, you even quoted what I said. If you take a look at many of the LFS that support CanReef you will notice a large livestock section and a small dry goods section. It is obvious that these stores rely on livestock sales.

ORA is representative of the CB livestock sectional.Yes, ORA is one representative. The largest one in North America, but that's like saying all meat markets are like Extra Foods/Superstore. You can't paint them all with the same brush.

Again, your fish/experience is the exception, not the rule.If you are basing your entire captive bred opinion on ORA-raised fish you have a very limited view.


Anyway...I'm not here to argue with you about how an LFS makes money. We've both been involved in the aquarium industry for many years, and have obviously come to different conclusions which probably came from different experiences. Ciao.

[Myka]

To be honest, it's because I feel at this point, anything is going to be too little too late.

At the end of the day, I firmly believe we won't have much in the way of marine aquatic life sometime in the next 50 years.

Whether its global warming or acidification the signs are already apparent that this is a sick ecosystem...

Short of some technological miracle solution...we're probably the last reefers one way or the other...


Do you really think millions of people feed their families from this hobby?

That's a lot more than I would guess.

I tend to agree with you, although I would give it a longer timeline, probably more like 100 years, maybe 200. Earth is resilient, look at what it has put up with already. I think it would be interesting to look into the future and see Earth's human population 1000 years from now.

Do I think that millions of people feed their families through the aquarium trade? The entire aquarium trade, yes. Not so many just in the MO trade. Think of all the collectors (corals, fish, rock), wholesalers, shippers, LFS owners and employees, captive breeders, biologists, equipment manufacturers. Not all of them rely on the MO trade 100%, but for many of them it makes a big portion of their livelihood.

[saltcreep]

My point is, the aquarium trade is a drop of water in a large puddle.

And nobody is arguing that point. This simply boils down to those with a vested interest wanting to shut down the aquarium trade in Hawaii because it does impact the reef. It doesn't matter the degree or where is falls in the pecking order for damage to the reefs, simply put, the industry damages the reefs. There is no other way to put it.

This can only be "won" from a position of sustainability.

[Reef Pilot]

To be honest, it's because I feel at this point, anything is going to be too little too late.

At the end of the day, I firmly believe we won't have much in the way of marine aquatic life sometime in the next 50 years.


I have a little more faith in our planet and the ability of life to adapt. Species evolve and some go extinct. And sometimes there is a major reset which can be caused by an asteroid, or maybe a nuclear winter in the future.... All it would take is a pandemic to reduce our impact.... We are just a mere microscopic blip in the history of this planet.

When I was a kid, I was told that most of the world's O2 was produced (and CO2 was absorbed) in the Amazon, and if we don't stop deforestation there, the planet will die. Well, they have not stopped, and we're still here, plus I don't hear much about that anymore. More recently, I watched a show on Oasis that claimed that some forest in Siberia was producing most of the world's O2. And of course, the marine biologists would like us to believe that the ocean's kelp and other algae produce most of our O2. I honestly don't know what to believe now.

And what happened to the ozone scare. I thought the holes were opening up in the south and north, and we are all going to be fried with UV and get cancer. Don't hear much about that anymore either.

Now it's all about global warning, and how we have to stop burning carbon. I wonder what we will be talking about 20 years from now. I am sure there will be something else.

Having said all that, I do believe we need to continue to our efforts with reducing pollution on land and water, and be better at managing and conserving our resources. I think technology will help us with that, including solar power, carbon storage, and more efficient manufacturing.

On that front, I think we are already winning in some parts of the world, including the US and Canada. One example is LA. It is still bad there, but not as bad as it was 40 years ago. China needs to clean up its air, but I think they know that, and are working at it. So, I don't think the outlook is all bad.

I do wish the media (and Hollywood) would be a little less dramatic, and a little more honest with their reporting and documentaries. Sometimes, I think they make things worse, despite their apparently good intent, which misleads the public and prompts the politicians to make bad decisions.

But whatever happens, I think we all owe it to ourselves and everyone else to live a happy life. I think reefing (and other hobbies) are an important part of that. And the more we can share and help others, the better. Sure beats fighting/killing each other, doing drugs, or just watching TV.

[mrhasan]

Life always finds a way: evolution, extinction and new life forms are just some ways. :)

This planet is much more stronger than we are.

[mrhasan]

I have a little more faith in our planet and the ability of life to adapt. Species evolve and some go extinct. And sometimes there is a major reset which can be caused by an asteroid, or maybe a nuclear winter in the future.... All it would take is a pandemic to reduce our impact.... We are just a mere microscopic blip in the history of this planet.

When I was a kid, I was told that most of the world's O2 was produced (and CO2 was absorbed) in the Amazon, and if we don't stop deforestation there, the planet will die. Well, they have not stopped, and we're still here, plus I don't hear much about that anymore. More recently, I watched a show on Oasis that claimed that some forest in Siberia was producing most of the world's O2. And of course, the marine biologists would like us to believe that the ocean's kelp and other algae produce most of our O2. I honestly don't know what to believe now.

And what happened to the ozone scare. I thought the holes were opening up in the south and north, and we are all going to be fried with UV and get cancer. Don't hear much about that anymore either.

Now it's all about global warning, and how we have to stop burning carbon. I wonder what we will be talking about 20 years from now. I am sure there will be something else.

Having said all that, I do believe we need to continue to our efforts with reducing pollution on land and water, and be better at managing and conserving our resources. I think technology will help us with that, including solar power, carbon storage, and more efficient manufacturing.

On that front, I think we are already winning in some parts of the world, including the US and Canada. One example is LA. It is still bad there, but not as bad as it was 40 years ago. China needs to clean up its air, but I think they know that, and are working at it. So, I don't think the outlook is all bad.

I do wish the media (and Hollywood) would be a little less dramatic, and a little more honest with their reporting and documentaries. Sometimes, I think they make things worse, despite their apparently good intent, which misleads the public and prompts the politicians to make bad decisions.

But whatever happens, I think we all owe it to ourselves and everyone else to live a happy life. I think reefing (and other hobbies) are an important part of that. And the more we can share and help others, the better. Sure beats fighting/killing each other, doing drugs, or just watching TV.

Right on sir :D I am guessing one of the things that people will be fighting for is to stop wearing clothes so that the people in 3rd world country will get relieved from their "low-wage" paid jobs (without thinking something is better than nothing and that low wage might be keeping them and their families starving from death). Maybe they will put a ban on owning too many apparels? ;) World is not dying, its us! And its the nature of human to blame it on something else and in this case: mother earth.

I am pretty sure dinosaurs were concerned about pooping here and there and releasing methane into the air (I am presuming they had big poop) and maybe the dino environmentalists put a ban on pooping and hence eating and maybe that's why they extinct (hey I just made up an evolutionary theory :mrgreen:). Earth is not weak :)

[Reef Pilot]

I am pretty sure dinosaurs were concerned about pooping here and there and releasing methane into the air (I am presuming they had big poop) and maybe the dino environmentalists put a ban on pooping and hence eating and maybe that's why they extinct (hey I just made up an evolutionary theory :mrgreen:). Earth is not weak :)
Ha, ha, yeah, I think your theory is just as good as many others that are being peddled in the name of science these days...

[TimT]

Hi Wayne,

Sorry for the late reply but I have been sick.

I am not in the industry so my opinion is not biased.

My opinion is biased because I'm in the industry but Eric's is not? Isn't Eric in the same industry I am? Shouldn't he be biased too?

If you were in the industry you might know why Eric said "Let's take Hawaiian cleaner wrasse for example. We might have sold 1 all year long if that. I speak to the collectors and make sure they know not to collect them!"

Here is a little background info:
Eric's clientele are very price motivated. It is much easier for them to sell an Indo Pacific Cleaner wrasse for $10 than a Hawaiian cleaner wrasse for $60. Like Eric said "economics".

I don't think SDC or ERI can feed their fish simply due to logistics. There are other reasons like economics and that when the fish are only there for a week or less they will soon get fed at the stores tanks.

So when you take the cleaner wrasse from Indo/Philippines/Vietnam and they are not fed by the collector, exporter or wholesaler how long do you think the busy little fish has before it starves to death. Then when they get to the stores(not all stores do this) they are thrown a little rancid flake food, it's no wonder they die. This is one of the reasons for high mortality, starve a fish for too long and they won't start to eat again, especially if you offer them poor quality food they have never seen before.

Take a Hawaiian Cleaner Wrasse for example. Eric gets it and it has not been fed for a week or so. He doesn't feed it so it sits in the system week after week as no one wants to pay the price for it when the Indo Pacific ones are so cheap. Consequently poor little Hawaiian Cleaner Wrasse starves to death. Eric is a good business man so economics quickly take over and no more Hawaiian Cleaner Wrasses are ordered or collected.

Tim you know Eric one of the largest marine fish importers in the USA.

Eric and I ordered from some of the same suppliers but that's about where the similarity ends. I fed my fish twice a day with the most nutritious marine based frozen food on the planet. It cost me a lot for the food and the labour to have employees feeding and then vacuuming the systems on a regular basis. That is why my fish had the reputation of quality that they did. Fish respond well when fed and the mortality rates of the "difficult fish" are considerably reduced. Regular species(sleeper goby's and damsels) even began to spawn in the holding system.

Attached is an article in wetwebmedia.com by Robert Fenner and accomplished expert in fish and recognized as such.

Bob Fenner is someone that I respect greatly for his tireless work to educate hobbyists. I frequently recommend new hobbyists use his site for reference. He is however basing his opinions on what he sees happening in the US market.


Reefers need to make their own opinion based on facts/

Yes, I agree totally. I am trying to give you some new facts based on my experience as a wholesaler but you seem to be biased against me for some reason?? Wayne, we are on the same side. That being of conservation and sustainable limits/use. That is one reason why I quit importing fish from Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam. It is not all about money.


This hobby has come along way since I started in the mid 70's. Impossible to keep species are now breeding in captivity. Given time and better industry practices perhaps the difficult species of today will be able to survive in captivity for the long term.


On to the topic of Non Renewable resources. I find it interesting that copper used to be in that category. Since technology has moved along copper pipes have been replaced by plastic. There is no longer the concern of running out of copper. Then there is oil. I am hearing reports of oil fields that are supposed to run dry but they keep producing. There is apparently some mechanism whereby new oil is being created. One must ask... is there really such a thing as a non renewable resource?


How about "Extinct Species". Here is an interesting story.

"The first amphibian to have been officially declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been rediscovered in the north of Israel after some 60 years and turns out to be a unique “living fossil,” without close relatives among other living frogs, according to researchers at Hebrew University."

Full story can be read at:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168616#.Ua5NTMpYqkI

Lunch break is over so back to work!!!

Cheers,
Tim

[saltcreep]

I don't think SDC or ERI can feed their fish simply due to logistics. There are other reasons like economics and that when the fish are only there for a week or less they will soon get fed at the stores tanks....

...Eric and I ordered from some of the same suppliers but that's about where the similarity ends. I fed my fish twice a day with the most nutritious marine based frozen food on the planet. It cost me a lot for the food and the labour to have employees feeding and then vacuuming the systems on a regular basis. That is why my fish had the reputation of quality that they did. Fish respond well when fed and the mortality rates of the "difficult fish" are considerably reduced.

Actually, Tim, SDC does feed their fish and have full time staff that take care of this.

One must be careful of using the "I don't think" phrase and then making statements as if they are based on fact when it is just your speculation. Just sayin'.

[RumRunner]

http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2010/08/22/the-dark-hobby-can-we-stop-the-devastating-impact-of-home-aquaria-on-reefs-worldwide-72

[mrhasan]

http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2010/08/22/the-dark-hobby-can-we-stop-the-devastating-impact-of-home-aquaria-on-reefs-worldwide-72

Nothing is moral in this world. Our existence in the first place is not moral; we are putting in too much weight on the planet itself!

[RumRunner]

Agreed

[TimT]

Hi Kyle,

I fully expected you to post on this.

Actually, Tim, SDC does feed their fish and have full time staff that take care of this.

I expected this answer as well since you transship their fish to some of the stores which are on this board. Some of those stores are also my customers and in the past I have heard complaints of thin fish and excessive mortalities.

When I was at SDC I did not observe anyone feeding the fish. I did see staff cleaning and vacuuming the tanks but I was only there for a few hours. That is why I said that I didn't think they could logistically feed fish(and pack at the same time). I assume they do a fair amount of packing but I have never been there and watched their operation for a full day.

I have asked a friend of mine who worked at some of the largest LA wholesalers. They will provide a non partisan answer. If it turns out I am wrong then that is great for the fish. Either way I will post their response.

Cheers,
Tim

[TimT]

Hi Kyle,

My friend replied and said that they are in SDC very often and they know that they do feed their fish. I stand corrected.

Cheers,
Tim