A Call to Ban Reptiles- Is our Hobby Next??

[Fredfish]

Sigh... Its been a number of years since I have responded to a flame, but I just can't hold back.

naesco: It's OUR hobby. Anyone that has a tank right now, contributes in one way or another to the demise of wild critters. Where do you think all those "captive raised" corals originally came from? Wild parents that were collected, probably in an unsustainable way, on those reefs we should be striving to protect.

If WE want OUR hobby to survive and thrive WE need to find a solution that will either satisfy all parties, or at liest shame the most radical opponents into silence.

The more people that have an economic stake it this hobby (in a sustainable way) the more likely it is to continue.

Mary and others like her are taking this approach buy encouraging: a) responsible practice at this end: b) sustainable harvest and culture in areas where the reefs are located.

By engaging those who originally supported a ban in a positive manner Mary and others like her will eventually find the best sollution and one that will satisfy the widest group of interested parties.

As long as we all continue to participate in this hobby, we are either part of the problem or part of the solution. It is OUR choice!

I know where I stand.

Fred.

There. Now I feel better. That should do me for another 10 years

 

[Anonymous]

Fred

You hit on a point, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

So what is the solution and what is the problem considering the reefs are getting smaller and the hobby is growing larger;

continued unregulated harvest of wild corals and fish or captive raised livestock?

 

[MaryHM]

Fishaholic, you say:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> So what is the solution and what is the problem considering the reefs are getting smaller and the hobby is growing larger;continued unregulated harvest of wild corals and fish or captive raised livestock
<hr></blockquote>

I don't think it has to be one extreme or the other. I think there is a happy medium- regulated harvest of wild corals and fish alongside captive raised livestock.

 

[MandarinFish]

Prove it's sustainable.

I don't think you can.

---------------------------------------
Captive-Raised Saltwater Fish

Unlike freshwater aquarium fish, many of which are bred and reared in captivity, the vast majority of saltwater fish are captured in the wild. However, a few species of marine fish, notably many of the Clowns, Dottybacks, and a few Gobies are currently being produced in commercial hatcheries and sold through around the world. Here's why we should consider purchasing captive-raised fish:

Hardiness: Captive raised fish are hardy - much hardier than their wild-caught counterparts. Many wild-caught clownfish, for example, have been collected with drugs, are heavily infested with parasites - or both. These fish often refuse even living foods, hang in the tank's corner for a few days, and then perish. Captive-raised fish often eat flake food within a few minutes of being released in their new home and appear to be much more resistant to infections.

Ecology: While there have been improvements in the policing of collecting practices, some wild-caught marine fish are still subdued with cyanide or other chemicals, which can certainly cause at least local environmental damage. Even the "safe" methods of collection, such as barrier nets or hand net / poker combinations, cause some concern, if for no other reason than that some balance is lost anytime anything is removed from its environment. Captive-raised fish, by definition, have no direct impact on wild populations.

Value: Most captive-raised Dottybacks are actually somewhat less expensive than the same species of wild-caught fish (try catching one of these babies out of a reef tank and you'll know why), most Gobies are about the same price, while most Clownfish cost a little more. However, after factoring in potential losses and disease treatments, even the most expensive captive-raised specimens are true bargains.

Supporting Breeders: In order to encourage breeders to produce more and better specimens of more and more species, we need to show them a healthy market for their merchandise. Unfortunately, to date we have not done so, and several breeders have had to give up the business. With increasing legislation and loss of vitality of some collecting areas, captive-raised animals may well be the whole future of the marine hobby someday. How we support these breeders now will determine how rewarding our hobby will be then.

Submitted by: Jim Kostich

 

[MaryHM]

Mandarin:

When you say "Prove it's sustainable", I'll say what I've been saying for the past few days.

REEF CHECK IS CURRENTLY DOING MANAGEMENT STUDIES ON VARIOUS COLLECTION AREAS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND WILL BE SUBMITTING THEIR FINDINGS TO THE MARINE AQUARIUM COUNCIL SOON.

Until they report their findings, I cannot say what the sustainable harvest levels at any particular site are.

As far as the captive bred fish article you posted, I'm not sure what the point of that was. No one here is arguing that captive bred animals do not need to play a role in this industry. In fact, I know Jim Kostich- as he is an AMDA member that has been gracious enough to write articles for the AMDA Newsletter in the past.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary

I do not doubt in a perfect world it could be.

I ask one simple question if the importers and wholesalers were able to self regulate then why do they keep bringing in corals that are so easily fragged?

I think we both know the answer, because one will not stop and of course her/his wild collected will be huge with great color.

So it becomes a question of if the wholesalers can show restraint to save their profession?

I have seen no signs of it have you and would you support the stopping (A nicer word for ban) animals that are easily tank raised?

 

[MaryHM]

You're exactly right Fishaholic. I do not support the banning of species that can be captive bred. As far as corals go, those that are bred in captivity are the "quick growers" on the reefs, so collection of these species will not cause an adverse impact when coupled with a proper management plan. Do I think it makes sense to buy captive bred vs. wild caught? In some cases yes. For example, I will not import many species of Xenia because they are very poor shippers. Instead I have colonies here at my facility that I take regular cuttings from. If an organization like Reef Check says "Collection area X can sustain the removal of 1000 percula clowns per year", I see no reason that 1000 percula clowns could not be collected in that area.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary

This may be falling on deaf ears but those outside our hobby, the overwhelming majority. The same people who will in the end determine the fate of wild harvesting coral IMO will not understand the arguement that we should keep taking from the reefs something we can produce without impacting the wild populations. We are not talking about hoofstock, the herd does not need to be thined to keep it from disease. With supporting this I can not see how the wholesalers and importers will appeal to the general public who are becoming more enviromentaly aware every day.

 

[MandarinFish]

That's 1000 animals that belong in the ocean.

Cold got to be.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>

 

[Bill2]

1000 animals that we have no idea what would have happened to them in the wild. If reef A has 4000 percs on it one would assume that 4000 is the equlibrium number too many and they die, too few and they breed quickly to rise to 4000. If scientists state you can collect 500 of them in jan and then no collecting until the next jan one would assume that by next jan the equlibrium of 4000 would be reached again. If no percs were collected off the reef there would still be 4000 becuase that is the natural number.

It's a bit confusing but if a X # of fish can be taken off the reef then the natural population will increase accordingly to match their naturnal number. If the fish are not taken off the reef the natural population will only replace those that are lost through death during that year.

Got my drift?

 

[MandarinFish]

I respectfully submit that's too simplistic.

If that were the case, wild populations of all animals would be in great shape.

By damaging large sections of intricate life webs of biomes, people are devastating the natural cycle and balance.

That's like saying "They would die at some point anyway."

Why haven't the anemones repaired their lost populations? How about pandas?

1000 lost clownfish = hundreds of anemones without their symbionts (many subsequently perishing), less prey for fish that can catch and eat clowns, more creatures the clownfish eat, damsel populations thrown off, etc.

Ask Dr. Ron.

Importing clownfish should be illegal.

 

[dragon0121]

You can't say 100 fish can't be taken and then point to the anemone and clown fish relationship as your model. That's apples to oranges. You said fish so talk in general or point out specifics. Take a look at creel limits for fishing. It has been statistically proven to have zero impact on the number of fish that hatch from the crappie spawn to allow the taking of spawning crappie. How can this be? Well, so many eggs are laid that competition by the young will result in x number surviving, the rest die, period. Find the number of young that die through competition with each other and you have found a sustainable number of young fish that can be removed with zero impact. It might only be 10 fish per year but it is sustainable and this is true of most fish. Fish and Wildlife do this in freshwater lakes every year across the U.S. and fish populations are maintained and managed even with a rising fishing pressure. It can be done if the processes are put in place and managed correctly.

All of the above ignores the emotional/politcal slant that some people have been throwing in and just looks at what happens to fish populations in the wild.

 

[farmertodd]

What will MAC do if the report comes back:

"We report... That this is all FUBAR."

Or has that even been considered?

 

[MaryHM]

Todd,

If I knew what FUBAR was, I could probably answer your question.

 

[SPC]

Pandas and FUBARS oh my!

Steve

 

[farmertodd]

"Fouled" Up Beyond All Repair.

 

[MaryHM]

Well Todd, that is a distinct possibility and one that I have considered. In fact, I think there will be some collection areas that will be closed and other ones that will be opened.

 

[farmertodd]

Well... Okay. I'm getting frustrated so I will just stop now. I may end up typing something I'd regret (which I've done once or twice before

) and I don't want to do that ever again, since I think you all are fine people.

This is not to say I won't be back....

We're still pals right Mary?

I never set out to hammer at you personally, but you stayed at the plate!

Have a happy and *safe* New Year!

Todd

 

[MaryHM]

Todd,

I'm not sure what you're so frustrated about. If I'm failing to address a point you're trying to make then I apologize and ask you to make it clearer to me. If you're frustrated because people on here may not agree with all of your opinions, then TOUGH LUCK PAL!

I think you have a lot to contribute here, even though I don't agree with some of the things you say. And of course we're still pals!! As long as people conduct themselves in a respectable manner here, I harbor no ill will- and you've always managed to be respectable.

 

[farmertodd]

Mary,

No.. It's the habitat exploitation without any seeming return besides "for the benefit of humans" that's frustrating. Not anything someone is saying or not saying. I sometimes trip myself over "the underlying themes" that resurfaces in a demonic form named "Bad Mood Todd" or "BMT" for short.

I wanted to avoid such an incidence.

Todd