What about shoddy retailers?

[Anonymous]

ditto...

Livestock is held for as long as necessary. Most of our customers are reef oriented and thus most of our fish are reef safe, with the occasional grouper or trigger or lion. No feeder fish, it doesn't leave the store unless it is eating silversides or freeze dried krill.

 

[naesco]

It appears that many of you who are posting on this subject are concerned about the ethical issue raised in this and other threads.
So my question to you is this.
Is it not more difficult to compete with your competitor who keeps all those beautiful impossible to keep fish that you refuse to because you know the chances of survival are dismal?
If a ban on them were imposed does not than level the playing field? You (the good guys) are not affected at all; just the bad guys.
If you are not affected at all than why not support a ban on 'impossible to keep species"?
Are we talking philosophy here? Is definition of 'impossible to keep' the problem?
Or are you just taking that position because we are bashing LFS and you are one of them and don't feel it is deserved as you are one of the good guys.

 

[Carpentersreef]

I absolutely support a ban on impossible to keep species.

Mitch

 

[JeremyR]

I guess I just don't like being lumped in the evil LFS category. As far as supporting bans.. I would support species bans based on the tullock type list, and even regional quota type bans or collection issue type bans (IE INDO FISH).. but I do not support a complete ban.. and I guess my fear is that if you ask the govt to get involved, the will just stop it all rather than try to do the right thing. That's why I wish the general public would care enough to learn and stop buying the stuff that isn't going to make it.. because as long as they buy it, it's going to be collected.. everyone wants to lay blame on the collectors/importers.. but it's a supply/demand issue. Whenever there is a demand for something, someone will meet it with a supply.. look at the drug market.

And to the people who say all coral should be banned no matter what: You better quit using paper, better quit eating anything that grows.. you can't survive on this planet without using one natural resource that is living or another.. and as long as it's renewable, what makes cutting down a tree to make a house or paper any different than growing a coral in a fish tank? Trees are such a good example.. it's an industry that can abuse the environment and really screw things up, but it's an industry that if properly managed is fully renewable and beneficial to all.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with a ban on "impossible to keep" species only if enforced through the industry. If a wholesaler are supplier was certified by whatever organization to support sustainable collection practices and a ban on impossible to keep species, I would seek them out anddo business with them as I think a lot of other owners would. I do not trust the government to do it. I have seen them screw stuff up to many times. For example, a certain species of snail (FW) was deemed a nuisance pest in Tennessee and was deemed illegal to sell for that reason. The government then shows up at pet stores throughout the Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee area trying to conviscate all snails. They simply aren't set up to be able to effectively enforce species specific bans. The wholesalers and industry types are. I say let them do it.

Glenn

 

[MaryHM]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

For example, a certain species of snail (FW) was deemed a nuisance pest in Tennessee and was deemed illegal to sell for that reason. The government then shows up at pet stores throughout the Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee area trying to conviscate all snails. They simply aren't set up to be able to effectively enforce species specific bans.

Excellent point. Same thing happened with the Great Caulerpa Fiasco of 2001. California wanted to ban ALL 74+ species of Caulerpa because of one nuisance species. Why? Because they didn't think they could identify the one culprit. That is shoddy and irresponsible reasoning. Luckily the hobbyists were able to get that bill amended. But guess what- 6 "look alike" species that pose absolutely no danger had to be banned so Fish & Wildlife could easily tell them apart.

 

[MarkS]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Carpentersreef:
<strong>I absolutely support a ban on impossible to keep species.

Mitch</strong><hr></blockquote>

So, 10 years ago you would have supported a ban on SPS because there was absolutly no way to keep them alive?

What is impossible to keep today is being bred with regularity tomorrow.

If SPS were banned ten years ago because everyone thought that they were impossible to keep, do you think that we would be fragging SPS today?

It was just two years ago that anemones were considered impossible to keep and should be banned. Now not a week goes by that someone is not posting about their X species of anemone splitting. And splitting. And splitting.

Someone has even had a goniopora split. Twice.

Many different typed of fish are being bred today that could not 5 - 10 years ago. Yes, during that time there were many irresponsible purchases by irresponsible people. But if these creatures were banned, we would not see the sucesses that we have seen today.

Remember, most if not all research institutes are not interested in breeding fish and corals. They are just there to study them. If we ban impossible to keep fish and coral, only research institutes will have access to them and nothing will ever be done to try to raise them.

Mark

 

[naesco]

Someone even had a gonipora split twice
Great, in the meantime, we will continue to import them and sell them by the tens of thousands to unsuspecting reefers for them to die and pollute their reef tanks so then can than buy more of them and dendronephthya and fish like Moorish Idols and every imaginable Butterflyfish and on and on and on.
Or, we can restrict the imports but at the same time allow responsible individuals and organizations to import them so they could study their needs, food, propagation etc.
Where do you stand?

 

[Anonymous]

A line must be drawn somewhere. Technology eventually caught up with the desire to keep SPS and success was the result. The biology of the animal was not changed, our ability to meets its needs did. In the case of many of the species we are discussing, we know exactly how to keep it alive, it just simply isn't practical to do so.

Glenn

 

[MarkS]

My stance is simple. If we ban everything hard to keep, we will never advance this hobby.

If we could ban certain animals so that only "responsible" aquarists could obtain them, then how do you enforce this? Who determines "responsible"?

The problem lies with LFS'. If anyone and everyone can buy a creature that cannot currently be kept, then we have a problem. This is how things currently are.

If we ban everything, then how do we learn?

Education is the key, not banning.

Mark

 

[naesco]

Rover
Is it that it Christmas-time that every day and every way I seem to be agreeing with you instead of spitting nails or are you becoming a conservationist?

 

[MarkS]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rover:
<strong>Technology eventually caught up with the desire to keep SPS and success was the result. The biology of the animal was not changed, our ability to meets its needs did. In the case of many of the species we are discussing, we know exactly how to keep it alive, it just simply isn't practical to do so.

Glenn</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but my point is that if SPS were banned back then, would we ever had known it was a technology problem and not biological?

Goniopora, for instance, live in lagoons. Basically, they spend their life in muddy water with high flow and enormous amounts of plantonic lifeforms. Our prestine reefs cannot support them. If I wanted to make a lagoon style tank and try to raise goniopora, would I be an irresponsible aquarist?

Mark

 

[SPC]

Mark, how do you propose this education take place?
Steve

 

[MarkS]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SPC:
<strong>Mark, how do you propose this education take place?
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do what we are doing now. Educate with these forums.

Stop being afraid to speak up in a LFS when you see bad advice being given out.

Support good LFS' and boycott the bad ones.

Word of mouth.

.
.
.

Mark

 

[naesco]

You have to understand Mark that back than was back then.
We do not have to go through all that butchery all over again.
If we find a way to keep a certain species which has been banned we can than remove it from the list.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know about the goniopora example. That seems to be an instance where we don't exactly know the requirements for keeping them alive. I am referring to instances where we know why things don't live and are well aware of why they don't survive in our tanks. Those (IMO) should be banned. No amount of research is going to make an obligate SPS feeder eat flake food, (I don't think) and if they can I can't imagine how expensive that flake food would be. It's just to impractical. For those cases where we just don'y know yet I think I would be in favor of a partial ban or limited export (as long as the collection was sustainable), this would cut back on their availability and only those who were truly interested in housing it and research would end up with it (in a perfect world).

Glenn

 

[naesco]

Education like this board is key.
But let's educate the people who arrive at this board with the easier to keep wild species, frags, and captive bred fish that will continue to be available after the bans take place.
There is so much for everyone to learn.
The impossible to keep species have no place in our tank today.

 

[MarkS]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rover:
<strong>I don't know about the goniopora example. That seems to be an instance where we don't exactly know the requirements for keeping them alive. I am referring to instances where we know why things don't live and are well aware of why they don't survive in our tanks. Those (IMO) should be banned. No amount of research is going to make an obligate SPS feeder eat flake food, (I don't think) and if they can I can't imagine how expensive that flake food would be. It's just to impractical. For those cases where we just don'y know yet I think I would be in favor of a partial ban or limited export (as long as the collection was sustainable), this would cut back on their availability and only those who were truly interested in housing it and research would end up with it (in a perfect world).

Glenn</strong><hr></blockquote>

That sounds much more resonable. Banning species that we cannot keep alive and know why we cannot keep alive makes sense. Banning a hard to keep animal that we no nothing about is a very bad thing.

Mark

 

[Carpentersreef]

Mark,
I see your point, but I don't think it should be up to hobbiests to be the main experimental testing grounds for "impossible to keep" animals.
For the most part, I think, hobbiests are susceptible to slick marketing and bad advice. I would rather larger, technologically based companies (Aquamedic or Aqualine, for example) be the ones to identify the needs of difficult animals, and develop products to suit. Only THEN would I support lifting the ban on the animal, and as a result hobbiests would be more successful as a whole.
I rarely see hobbiests that perform scientifically based studies that identify the needs of difficult animals. Instead, I see instances where some one will say "I don't do any water changes, I add whatever I want when I want, and all my corals thrive!"
I think that just increases the frustration level of aquarists that are trying to follow good reefkeeping practices, and winds up hurting the hobby, and a lot of animals die for a reason that no one can identify.

Mitch

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Carpentersreef ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> I don't think it should be up to hobbiests to be the main experimental testing grounds for "impossible to keep" animals.
<hr></blockquote>

Although if I'm not mistaken, many of the advancements in the hobby have achieved by motivated hobbyists. Most research institutions just have "more important things to do."

Glenn