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

[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]

Originally Posted by TimT

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

[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]

Originally Posted by jorjef

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

[kien]

Originally Posted by jorjef

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.