Fish Survival in Aquariums vs. the Ocean

[jenglish]

There are different strategies for passing on one's genetics. Some species put a large amount of energy into having large, well formed offspring, who a large investment in energy and time is made. These are generally longer lived species like humans or sharks. Other organisms choose to have large broods that are poorly formed and have individually low chances of survival, such as many of the reef fish we have. So taking a shark that is less easily replaced than a damsel has a different ecological impact IMO.

As far as an individual, a fish may live much longer in captivity, from a population perspective, if they cannot breed there is no survivability :bigeyes:

 

[RobH]

I am fairly new to the hobby, but from all my research, this hobby has come VERY far in a short time. Especially in the "Responsible Reefkeeping aspect". There are many people who propagate coral and breed fish to help supplement their income, and to help take stress off reefs. Heck, people even create their own live rock now.

My point is, that while now and in the past, we have depleted the oceans and destroyed reefs. We are making steps towards making that better, repairing reefs, etc. As time goes on we will learn how to breed more and more fish in captivity, until most of the fish in the trade are tank raised and we no longer take from reefs. So while fish we take can no longer breed in the ocean, and pass on their genes and offer other benefits, this is a means to an end. The people out there who are actively trying to breed these fish will gain knowledge, that is passed onto others, through books and forums just like this. At least we aren't just taking, without trying to make a change.

So anyways, those people who take the time and effort and money to try to breed captive fish that haven't been bred before, I thank you and wish them the best.

 

[iamwrasseman]

we have depleted this world of sorts of stuff such as coal ,wood and fuels so when does it become a problem if we are removing fish from reefs ? this is a bit off subject but we cant even begin to really estimate what the ornamental fish trade is doing to the reefs because of the global warming ,oil drilling and all the pollution that we throw into the ocean all are killing them at the same time . to answer your question yes many do perish faster in out of the ocean but we are getting so much better so many are living longer in captivity after their initial acclimation .before that in the collection process and distribution of these fish yes we are killing to many of them . the collection and distribution people should step up and take care of the fish better in order to preserve them but it all has to do with money .

 

[candeewolf]

I tend to think of this problem as akin to other forms that impact global warming. There are those who drive a hummer by themselves to get to work everyday, driving 100 miles round-trip and even one-way. Many factories aren't bound by intense environmental restrictions and dump tons of toxic chemicals. There are families that have 6+ children.

However there are also people who drive a Prius, have 1-2 children, and factories that abide by environmental groups' suggestions on waste. Now all of those "good" examples still contribute to global warming, even if it is small: a Prius still puts out CO2 and other gases, 1-2 children still adds to the overpopulation problem, and any toxic waste produced by a factory still pollutes the surrounding ecosystem.

However, if most people drove a Prius and bought from environmentally sound companies and had small families, I think we'd be fine. To put it another way: if we removed the small producers of environmental destruction, it WOULD lessen the impact, but hardly enough to make a dent in the problem. If we remove the producers of the large amounts of waste and destruction, we would be fine. I tend to think of those of us that make conscientious decisions about the corals and fish that we buy as no overall problem to the oceans and reefs. If most aquarists out there were like us, and factories didn't pollute their nearby reefs, and cyanide fish catching was a thing of the past, but people still kept aquarium fish, it would be all right. We have to learn to lessen our impact, not necessarily remove it. Just by living, you contribute to the overall impact on the planet, no matter how good of a lifestyle you have. A person's gotta eat, breathe, go to the bathroom, shower...all of those things impact the Earth, its just the extent to which you do it.

 

[iamwrasseman]

you are 100% correct and the main problem here is money . it simply costs more to be environmentally friendly no matter what it is .everything would cost so much more if everything were switched over and the human population has gone to far to reverse it .we will destruct ourselves one way or another . i am an optimist and it is very difficult in these times to stay that way . i certainly would hate to be bringing children up in this day and age simply because they are going to pay the price for what mankind has been doing for the past 100 years . the earth is already on tilt and its just a matter of time before we upset mother nature in such a way that she cant repair it .hunker down cause i bet its coming soon !

 

[jenglish]

Not to get too far off the original subject here, but I think in many cases it is a common view that if we suddenly stopped buying wild collected reef fish and corals that these reefs would suddenly be protected wonderlands. Let's even ignore global enviromental pressures unrelated to locals such as climate change, acidification etc... Many of the reef fish we buy come from very poor part's of the world where they are one of the few available resources with which to gain income and feed a family. A reef may be just as easily be torn apart for the dead coral curio trade or even as construction aggregates. If the reef inhabitants are collected from in a sustainable way, then buying a wild collected fish may not be an irresponsible act at all.

This is in no way saying I am against aquaculture, merely pointing out things are not always as simple as they seem.

 

[iamwrasseman]

nail hit directly on the head ! i 2nd that

 

[vitz]

we have depleted this world of sorts of stuff such as coal ,wood and fuels so when does it become a problem if we are removing fish from reefs ? this is a bit off subject but we cant even begin to really estimate what the ornamental fish trade is doing to the reefs because of the global warming ,oil drilling and all the pollution that we throw into the ocean all are killing them at the same time . to answer your question yes many do perish faster in out of the ocean but we are getting so much better so many are living longer in captivity after their initial acclimation .before that in the collection process and distribution of these fish yes we are killing to many of them . the collection and distribution people should step up and take care of the fish better in order to preserve them but it all has to do with money .

"but we cant even begin to really estimate what the ornamental fish trade is doing to the reefs because of the global warming "

to a certain extent, we actually can (at least to potential impact upon species populations)....

when it comes to the number of individuals removed yearly for the various species of fish 'harvested' for the hobby...

these are for the most part, listed and invoiced upon arrival for each importer/wholesaler-you might be quite surprised to learn just how many powder blue tangs , diamond watchman gobies,or mandarins,(for a few examples) are landed into the u.s. monthly at one importer/wholesaler-multiply that by the number of major importers in this country, add a tad for the smaller importers, then realize that the worldwide amount is larger than the u.s. total, and it becomes clear that multiple thousands of powder blue tangs removed monthly from the reef communities is not an unlikely estimate

(one typical shipment of mandarins to one importer can be anywhere from 100-300 individual fish-and that one importer will usually order that at least every two weeks, if not weekly)

(and this doesn't take into account the total catch prior to pre-shipout mortality from the collection/export side-which could add a siginificant bump to the numbers landed)

many of the typically imported species of fishes size ranges are declining-hippo tangs, and other species, are typically arriving at smaller and smaller sizes, on average, because larger individuals are more scarce....

i'm just sayin...

 

[iamwrasseman]

oh yes its startling how mush is taken out of the ocean ! i agree with that for sure .the global warming issue is much bigger that that .take into account that everything that we have in this world actually came for inside or on top of it . we have over harvested trees ,all fossil fuels ,all animals ,every precious metal ,gypsum ,and the list could go on and on . we have done this to ourselves and our children ans grandchildren will pay for it .there is only so much we can take until the world will go on tilt .needless to say that we also have overpopulated it also and that's only part of the burden .the ornamental fish trade is just a very small slice of the pie .

 

[cortez marine]

I fear the need to blame the smallest and least threatening impacts to hide from the greater ones is the worst kind of cowardice and dishonesty.

There is a good 20 year track record now of semi- environmental NGOs marketing alarms and weak remedies targeting those that don't won't or cannot strike back.
Most eco-groups are afraid to tackle the priority issues and those primarily irresponsible for them.
Inasmuch as large corporations are now the primary funders and drivers of scarce eco-funding.....they hold out the money w/ a few strings attached.

This has now become the norm, the culture and the facade that keeps the prime assaults and negative impacts on marine eco-systems secondary to the smaller, token ones.

The aquarium trade is an easy mark. Small but relevant by association with the ocean.
Dis-organized and tribal....and unable to fund good defense.

Ignorant, auto-pilot faux environmentalism negates the most wonderful advances made in better collecting methodology and aquaculture.

And pretending to be green whatever that really means is now en vogue. Its easy to pretend. Much easier then to be.

Sorry,
Gotta run now and set out the recycling box so I can do my "bit" now to "save the planet."
Steve

 

[ackee]

Cortez, you are exactly on target. Reef collecting is a sham target, a comparatively harmless activity, used to deflect attention from things like massive development, oil extraction, and the dumping of chemical and biological waste. What killed the reefs in Jamaica, where 90% of them are dead rock? It was not collecting. What turned the shoreline of west Florida into a strip of barren sand? Not collecting.

I have no patience with anybody who criticizes collecting fish unless they are willing to condemn the fundamental cause of the environmental catastrophe that has already occured and which continues to become worse: the unrestricted expansion of humanity. Excessive human numbers are behind virtually every environmental problem. If this root cause is not attacked by restricting the number of children people are allowed to have, the natural world is doomed. Population restrictions are the only real solution, as distasteful as it may seem to most people.

The only way that population growth can be curbed is by legal compulsion, as in China. If people insist on having more than one child, let them educate their own children, let them pay for every service society offers, provide their own water and police protection. If this does not work, the situation is dire enough to justify forcible sterilization. Remember ZPG? Zero Population Growth? Participating men got to wear a small lapel pin, the male symbol with a snip out of the arrow. I still have mine. I have no sympathy for the suffering teeming masses of humanity. We did it to ourselves, one child at a time.

 

[Malum Argenteum]

The only way that population growth can be curbed is by legal compulsion, as in China.

Well, not the only way. The following countries (note China is not among them) have negative population growth (these are 2006 stats), and most are expected to continue declining in population:

Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050
Russia: -0.6%; -22%
Belarus -0.6%; -12%
Bulgaria -0.5%; -34%
Latvia -0.5%; -23%
Lithuania -0.4%; -15%
Hungary -0.3%; -11%
Romania -0.2%; -29%
Estonia -0.2%; -23%
Moldova -0.2%; -21%
Croatia -0.2%; -14%
Germany -0.2%; -9%
Czech Republic -0.1%; -8%
Japan 0%; -21%
Poland 0%; -17%
Slovakia 0%; -12%
Austria 0%; 8% increase
Italy 0%; -5%
Slovenia 0%; -5%
Greece 0%; -4%

None of these countries have legislated birth policies, to my knowledge.

Also, Thomas Malthus put forward a pretty influential theory about another way that population growth can be curbed. I suspect we'll see his theory in action, maybe not anytime soon, but someday.

 

[cortez marine]

Everyone of those countries was nullified by Indonesias growth alone.

The aquarium trade is an easy target by cowardly and dishonest eco-frauds.
I say frauds because they conciously and premeditatedly choose to ignore the elephant because they fear it and can instead beat up on the mouse.

Besides it seems to pay equally to perform token gestures as opposed to actual field work with fisherfolk. Since field audits are rarely performed by independants, they get away with judging themselves.
Im sorry for the rant...I feel too much actual experience has tilted my perception.
Cowards are hardly needed at the front when the situation is as dire as they claim....
Steve

 

[vitz]

two wrongs don't make a right, and the relative 'strength' of one wrong is not relevant to the strength of the other, or its 'moral weight'

steve has a long history of using one to distract the argument away from the other

killing 100 people doesn't make killing one any less horrific, or make a murderer any less culpable for the murder of the one

the credibility of an accuser, or their motives, doesn't make their accusations any less valid, if their accusations are true to begin with

if removing hobby livestock from the wild does indeed impact upon the species' survival (i personally think it doesn't, in and of itself)- it does it regardless of who publishes the data/'accusations', etc etc etc

it's also a completely different argument/subject that has no bearing on the original thread subject

 

[cortez marine]

two wrongs don't make a right

,...
Exactly my point... they just confuse it futher.

Naive well meaning people ally with eco-con artists and nothing gets done!
The worst that has been done by the sellouts is to confuse the newbies by peddling the easy stuff and ignoring the difficult.
The hieght of hypocrisy was the stateside eco-labeling fluff as the cyanide trade went unchallenged.
Indeed it was let of the hook.
Steve

 

[iamwrasseman]

ackee I'm with ya 100% .you make good sense.

 

[vitz]

,...
Exactly my point... they just confuse it futher.

Naive well meaning people ally with eco-con artists and nothing gets done!
The worst that has been done by the sellouts is to confuse the newbies by peddling the easy stuff and ignoring the difficult.
The hieght of hypocrisy was the stateside eco-labeling fluff as the cyanide trade went unchallenged.
Indeed it was let of the hook.
Steve

please explain what any of your posts have to do with the original topic of this thread, which deals with the issue of how removal of fish from the wild for the hobby impacts relatively/comparatively on the wild populations

as usual, you attempt to hijack completely unrelated posts/topics to further your neverending 'soapbox' agendas

while i don't necessarily disagree with your end agenda(s), your methods of interjecting them where they truly do not belong, or bear any relevance, are getting fairly tiresome to read

what do you have to contribute to the actual original topic ?

 

[cortez marine]

The very first line of the thread;

So, we get a lot of flak on here because the aquarium industry is responsible for destroying reefs,

The only post I saw that had nothing to contribute to the discussion was yours.

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

IMO taking anything from nature will have an adverse effect on its numbers or population (fish,coral,trees,water...etc). The only factor I see is if nature can keep up to replenish or replace what we have taken. In the past we cleared trees and never replaced what we took, we now plant trees also to help replenish. In the aquarium hobby we have advanced exponentially with our methods of raising our own livestock whether it be coral or fish. Here is an example in Fiji: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI04VK0NMyM. IMO we are doing as much good to balance out what we are taking and the end of the world is not near, the sky is not falling..... nature is very resilient.

Also IMO vitz it seems you are the one with the agenda; coming into this thread simply to attack...cortez.

 

[cortez marine]

If fish live longer on the reef then in captivity is a non issue.
The fisherman caught it and owned it first.
After that, the fish was gone from the reef...as in a food fish.
Did it live 2 years, 4 years or 8?
Could it have lived for 16 years as a lineolatus butterfly did at the Nice Aquarium in France? [ A captivity longer then nature would allow]
Did it live a life without predators and the constant , chronic stress associated with life in nature?
I guess you could come up with dozens of issues associated with this thread.

Feeding the original owner and a number of others in the chain. That was its original purpose and if that was done, the rest is gravy.


However, the environmental movement of yesteryear has evolved into an industry that needs fresh issues to justify and sustain itself.
Picking on the aquarium trade is an easy mark.
Picking out select issues in the trade even easier.

I just wanted people to know that when ever attacked by so-called environmentalists that there are things to consider;

1. There are few genuine environmentalists left...ie. environmentalists who care more of the issue then using it to anchor funding.

2. The business of fishing for problems, manufacturing alarm and gaining mileage out of poorly understood and knee jerk issues is growing.

3. Corporate style and funded environmentalism has slanted the mission and compromised its goals.

Now, if a concerned citizen really cares to give the stink-eye to the aquarium trade with all its faults, how could they not also give it to the environmental groups that have for so long allied with, consorted with and conspired with the trade for over a decade to generate money out of it.

Organisms that suck blood without wanting to kill the host are called what?

The aquarium trade has been the subject of environmental scrutiny for a long time now on issues both great and small. From unsuitable species to fishes that grow too large, from fishes that don't thrive in captivity to fishes caught with poison.

On all this they kept their eye on the bottom line and when the funding collapsed...so did their interest.

If you find a sincere environmental detractor, who has more then just a passing interest in aquarium keeping, consider yourself lucky.
Steve