Nicely put Ian. Thank you.

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

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

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.

aquaria are luxuries
 

Well said Ian.

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

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

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.

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.

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....

Some further thoughts...
 

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:

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.

Sorry Tim but you are dead wrong.
 

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/

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Damn you evolution!!!

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

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=948Nm...%3D948Nm34arfA

RIP dude.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/ca...3-fridmani.jpg

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


Typical wild-caught orchid dottyback

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.u...b6fc85fb00.jpg

http://www.exoticsaltwaterinnovation...rchiddotty.jpg


Typical captive-bred fang blenny

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-conten...grammistes.jpg

http://www.orafarm.com/images/produc...ackline_lg.jpg



Typical wild-caught fang blenny

http://www.masterfisch.de/951-198-th...hleimfisch.jpg

http://www.showyourfishes.com/fish_b...ang_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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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).

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 representative of the CB livestock sectional.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.