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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[BlueAbyss]

Originally Posted by 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!
- 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]

Originally Posted by IanWR

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]

Originally Posted by IanWR

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]

Originally Posted by kien

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

[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.