Is our hobby ethical?

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9545881#post9545881 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reefinmike
from my research, things that threaten the reefs are the collection of:

live rock
lps corals
and certian fish species


unfortunately you dont typically see aqua or maricultured lps for sale... in fact, ive never seen one. most common are sps and softies. sps collection from what i have read dosent impact the reefs because of the relatively low demand(compared to lps and softies), fast growth rate and the fact that they are the dominate corals of the reefs and cover vast expanses of oceans.

Live rock isn't usually taken directly from the reef and harvesting it may have some sort of impact it's doubtful that it has large impact on the surrounding reefs.

Many of the LPS corals in this hobby are non reef building corals and the ones that are reef building corals are usually quite young and the impact from their removal as a result of this hobby has yet to be felt. Even wild SPS that are collected are small and the impact from the removal has not been felt yet, and probably never will be.

Poor fishing practices, both for the hobby and for food are the main cause of destruction to the reefs. Well, at least the main cause that would relate to this hobby in some way.

 

[kathainbowen]

In the long haul, there are pros and cons to just about everything we do as humans.

Take recycled paper. On the one hand, it cuts back on the need for new paper pulps and deforresting for paper production. On the other hand, the production of recycled paper produces chlorines and runoff wastes of bleaches, inks, plastics, and other materials.

On the one hand: yes, we encouraged it, especially during the start of the reef hobby.

On the other hand: hobbyists have made great strides in the rearing of coral, as well as being the first people to really come up with the idea of a frag trading network similar to how zoos have traded animals for breeding. There are certain species of freshwater fish where we are already seeing that hobbyists are making a positive impact, where fish have such a limited habitat that it was doomed to be wiped out (several species of poeciliads come to mind).

For example, in the case of cichlids, hobbyists have maintained and preserved some species that would have been otherwise wiped out by the Nile Perch. However, on the same token, their natural desire for more exotic, more colorful specimens, has fueled the need for hormone treating, dye injection, and tattooing cichlids. Yes, you heard me right on that last one, tattooing fish. One, rather shady LFS actually has tattooed albino oscars, and I have seen tattooed platinum ogon koi in the past.

=/

 

[davidryder]

Wow! I have read this entire thread and there a lot of good points that have been made.

To address the point that fragged corals at some point came from the ocean:

It's like a tree. The first coral comes from the ocean. It turns into two. Those two turn into four. Those four turn into 8, then 16, 32, 64, then 128. So 7 generations later there are 128 fragments of one coral that have the potential to be fragged. So when you have 128 people supplying frags the demand for wild collected specimens reduce greatly. And that could occur in just 2 years time.

Also, if we sell frags to the LFS for cheaper than they get it for it would greatly reduce demand for wild caught specimens, and the LFS would have healthier specimens.

I think comparing our impact to others' impact is a cop-out and sad justification. It's something to make people feel better at the end of the day. And it's tunnel vision. For example, if there are 10 groups affecting the reefs (fisherman, collectors, etc) does it make sense for each group to say "Well our impact doesn't compare to so and so's impact, so why should we do anything?" It adds up, just like voting. I vote even though I think/know the candidate is going to lose.

The inspiration we create is probably off-set quite a bit by the additional amount of power we consume. Not to say it's even, but you can't say that you are in this hobby just to inspire conservation in others. Just because people see something that is pretty doesn't mean they will ever understand it or want to do anything to save it.

At the end of the day, I do what I can. Just as everyone here as mentioned about creating inspiration, buying aquacultured specimens, etc. I will continue to support this hobby as I know that I give something back. I do as much as I can to reciprocate what nature has done for me. Ethics are subjective to the individual, but I know we have an impact on the reef. The only thing short of shutting my tank down I can do is give back.

 

[looser]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9549627#post9549627 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
The only thing short of shutting my tank down I can do is give back.

Thanks davidryder. My point exactly.

 

[Chasmodes]

Webster defines "ethical"

1 : of or relating to ethics <ethical theories>
2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval <ethical judgments>
3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethical behavior>

My point is that the ethics depend on who defines them. We, as aquarists, define our own "ethics" and those ethics may differ substancially from those that define what is politically correct or not. The vast majority of people would argue that there is nothing wrong with what we do, probably because they enjoy our tanks and with that they could also keep tanks like ours, seeing life that they wouldn't normally see, and finally see that we are keeping our critters alive and for the most part doing it well. How is this any different than keeping any other pet? Animal rights groups define their own code of ethics and, whether or not we agree with them, often influence the rest of the world and cause people to feel guilty for what they do or what society may do. So, whether or not we are "ethical" or not depends on who deems us ethical or not. As an aquarist, I don't care what other people think about my hobby, I'm enjoy it and if that's selfish, then so what? Rather, I care about the critters that I keep and do my best to keep them healthy and alive for a long lifespan.

Next, about global warming...I'm not so sure that this would be as detrimental to reefs worldwide as much as, if it were true, to humans. The way that I see it, and I'm no scientist, but sea levels would rise, temperature changes would occur, existing reefs may or may not adapt, new reefs will form, and some will die. Along the way we'd probably lose some species due to extinction, but then again such a massive change may give rise to new species. Life goes on with or without us. I think that the bigger danger is that we find other ways to destroy reefs, and I believe that pollution (chemical or siltation) are bigger dangers that may cause our reefs to disappear way before major climactic changes could happen.

In summary, before we beat ourselves up, let's consider that we do what we do, and we as a group determine our own ethics, and we don't need others that don't understand our hobby to do so. And we most certainly do determine our own ethics...Examples include not keeping tangs or queen angels in small tanks, discouraging folks from keeping moorish idols, or mandarins in tanks that aren't established, or any critter that has no chance in even the best aquariums.

Finally, how are we any less ethical than the public aquaria? Ours in some cases may be better maintained and a better environment for our critters than they are with theirs?

OK, I'm going to enjoy my tank now and feel good about what I do for my animals.

Nice read everyone, I enjoyed all of the posts.

 

[greenbean36191]

I guess it depends on who you ask, but to some people at least mariculture and aquaculture are different in their production. But it certainly could be argued mariculture is just a form of aquaculture. Perhaps saying captive propagated vs. maricultured would be a better way to address it.

There's really no argument to be made about whether or not mariculture is a type of aquaculture. By its very definition, it is. The best answer to the confusion would be to use the terms with appropriate specificity. Aquaculture and mariculture are catch-all terms. They don't imply anything about production methods. When you're talking about production methods you're talking about intensity levels. What you do at home is intensive mariculture. Placing frags in the ocean to grow out is extensive mariculture. Both are also aquaculture. "Captive propagated" is always maricultured (and aquacultured), but can fall under almost any level of intensity. Captive propagated vs. maricultured is no different than the comparison of SPS vs. coral.

Being less reliant on wild specimens will beyond a doubt lessen OUR impact as hobbyists on the destruction of reefs. If fewer imports from collections of ornamental fish and corals results in more destructive uses of the reef then that will be another problem to tackle. Just because we fear eliminating a problem with just spawn a bigger problem doesn't mean we should just continue being as destructive as we are in this hobby. What it comes down to is if you want to be part of the problem or not.

We both agree that we're a part of the problem and we should do something about it. However, simply reducing or limiting our reliance on the reef does absolutely nothing to help the problem. It just shifts it from us to someone else. If we have the choice to either shift the impact to someone else or actually work to solve it, why should we promote action that only does the former?

 

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9552974#post9552974 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Hypsoblennius


Next, about global warming...I'm not so sure that this would be as detrimental to reefs worldwide as much as, if it were true, to humans. The way that I see it, and I'm no scientist, but sea levels would rise, temperature changes would occur, existing reefs may or may not adapt, new reefs will form, and some will die. Along the way we'd probably lose some species due to extinction, but then again such a massive change may give rise to new species. Life goes on with or without us. I think that the bigger danger is that we find other ways to destroy reefs, and I believe that pollution (chemical or siltation) are bigger dangers that may cause our reefs to disappear way before major climactic changes could happen.

Coral bleaching is occuring at an alarming rates and the main factor of that is the incresed water temperatures. Coral bleaching is not a new phenomenon, but how common it has become is. Hopefully corals will adapt quickly, because it's estimated that we'll see a 1 degree celcius rise in the average temperatures around the major corals reef in the world in the next 50 years. In other words, this isn't happening so slowly.

No doubt that we as humans can more directly destroy a reef much faster than global warming can. Dynamite fishing, cyanide fishing, dredging, and commercial development can wipe out reefs rather quickly as has been displayed in the Phillipines. However, global warming is still of concern.

 

[HBtank]

I eat fish to, so I guess I am really unethical.

Anyways, we are one of the only few who even care. I have long known that some of the biggest allies to the environment are the people that actually use it and find pleasure in it. Hunters, fisherman, reefers etc.. all may damage it some small way but they are also on the forefront of protecting it and passing that interest to other people.

This all would not be an issue if we were not overpopulating the world, the base cause of every environmental issue IMO.

I do try to be as responsible as I can with the hobby as well. I also plan on producing much more coral than I take.

Ok I think I can sleep tonight.....

 

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9553137#post9553137 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191


We both agree that we're a part of the problem and we should do something about it. However, simply reducing or limiting our reliance on the reef does absolutely nothing to help the problem. It just shifts it from us to someone else. If we have the choice to either shift the impact to someone else or actually work to solve it, why should we promote action that only does the former?

Are you suggesting that decreasing the demand for wild caught corals and fish by reproducing them amongst our own tanks does absolutely nothing to help the problem? How does less demand not equal less collection? And don't target specific species for the sake of your argument. I'm talking about across the entire hobby. Just because we can't reproduce every species in our tanks doesn't mean that by us lessening the demand for those species we can reproduce makes no difference.

 

[looser]

Haven't really thought this one all the way through, but just a point of clarification on keeping our fish alive for as long as they might survive in the wild. It might be true that some of them have a chance of living as long, or maybe even longer, but for the most part.... they have zero chance of reproducing in our tanks (or course with some exceptions). So whether or not they live a long life only means that we will take more or less of them from the wild. Not whether or not they will have the opportunity to continue the existence of their species.

 

[looser]

davidryder: I think it does make a differance. But its a differance in degree of badness (if you will). We might take less.....which better than taking more.....but we still take. So to the orignal question of is our hobby ethical, the answer is IMO still no. Some of us might be more or less unethical..... but its still a matter of degree of unethical. As pointed out earlier...this of course is based on my own personal postion.

 

[washingtond]

What is the carbon footprint of a NFL game on Sunday’s, a baseball game during the week? All the cars and buses just to get people to the game, all the electric power used by people watching on TV. What about all the other professional sports?

The reefs where here long before man and I would bet that they will be here long after we are gone the world is and will continue to change. This issue is like discussing religion or politics there is no right or wrong answer only opinions.

 

[looser]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9553407#post9553407 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by washingtond
What is the carbon footprint of a NFL game on Sunday’s, a baseball game during the week. All the cars and buses just to get people to the game, all the electric power used by people watching on TV. What about all the other professional sports?

The reefs where here long before man and I would bet that they will be here long after we are gone the world is and will continue to change. This issue is like discussing religion or politics there is no right or wrong answer only opinions.

I think we coverd this already. The postion is "Hey other things are worse so that makes what we do ok". Apply that logic to any other aspect of humanity, from crime, to slavery, to treatment of women in the middle east, and you see that is pretty much a text book case of an unethical position.

In fact .... there is a right an wrong answer. Another way to phrase the question is are we helping or hurting? The answer is very simple and abundently clear... we are hurting. How much is up for debate. Are we doing anything to reduce the amount of hurt, and make up for what we decide not to reduce, is up for action.

 

[kingzeus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9538544#post9538544 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DaveJ

Problem is... even aquacultured species etc are tainted. They all originated in the wild at some point. Sure its less of a drain on the wild populations to go that route, but ultimately the ethics boil down to at some point in time, something was taken out of its natural habitat and put into production for our benefit.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but this statement can apply to any domesticated animal.

 

[ruk]

^exactly, addition by subtraction....

 

[DaveJ]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9553684#post9553684 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kingzeus
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but this statement can apply to any domesticated animal.

Don't sound like a jerk and you caught the point of that statement.....

I'll expand further....

If one considers keeping corals, fish etc to be an unethical behavior and it concerns them enough to stop doing it, then they should probably consider becoming a vegan and doing away with any plant or animal byproducts for clothes, etc otherwise it would violate the foundation of the position.

Otherwise all they are ultimately saying is that the fish and corals are more important or deserve better treatment than domesticated animals. If you (general you) are that concerned for one animal, it should apply equally across the board no matter how the animal ended up in its present situation.

Key phrase in that expansion.... If it concerns them enough to give up this hobby due to ethical concerns. This is much different from choosing a more 'responsible' path and choosing to stick with aquacultured animals etc.

 

[vessxpress1]

The best thing anybody can do, is try to educate the beginner. Just think how many people have tried starting up and failed. Followed by abandoning the hobby. How many times does everybody think that happens? Probably a lot.

I myself lost a good sum of livestock and money when I was trying to get started because of bad information and limited, bad advice.

Some beginners need to be steered away from the hobby. Some just need to be better educated. This alone can help save livestock since if you don't have additional people buying things they shouldn't, the stores won't need to order more.

Once people are established in the hobby, they definately can help the situation just by teaching and by growing and fragging corals.
The power consumption is a poor argument with me. The power all the aquariums in this country use, pales in comparison to so many other things, it's not even worth mentioning. One pro sporting even was a great example.

Just grow what you can and share the bounty. If I didn't buy the corals I have in my tank right now, somebody else would have and they might have died. They could have went to waste and then they'd have to buy more and I would have none.

I've been growing them in my tank for 2 years with no crashes and I've fragged some. I buy all aquacultured if possible which is what I prefer anyway.

I keep my tank for many reasons. I like growing coral and sharing it with others. I like the challenge. I like educating people. I like to show people what's out there. Many people have seen my tank that my never see another live coral again in their lives. I also like all the diverse selection there is available.

It comes down to the fact that it's for my own enjoyment and satisfaction. Other than the fact that I won't try to put an over-sized fish in my tank, I never give it a second thought over whether it's ethical or not.

For corals, it really doesn't matter. I can grow them in my tank just the same as they do in the wild and my guess is, they don't know the difference. The corals in my tank don't have to worry about being a snack for predatory fish or destroyed in a hurricane. Most of the ones I have were aquacultured anyway.
My fish are well fed (may even get a more balanced diet than in the wild) and they don't need to worry about predators either.

Although there are other, different threats just the same (power outages etc..). , I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

[greenbean36191]

Are you suggesting that decreasing the demand for wild caught corals and fish by reproducing them amongst our own tanks does absolutely nothing to help the problem? How does less demand not equal less collection?

I'm not saying that it makes no difference, but it makes very little. Less demand doesn't equal less collection because we aren't the only ones using the reef. The animals and rock are also being collected for construction, the live fish (food) market, curios, muro ami, herbal medicines, etc. Even if the hobby completely stopped collecting from the reef, our share of the impact would only get shifted to one of the other users of the reef. Regardless of the state of hobby collection, the collectors still have to make money to stay alive and in a lot of areas, collecting from the reef is one of their only options. They could collect a handful of live corals and make $4 a week or they can collect a dumptruck full for use in construction to make the same amount. They could collect 100 or so fish for the hobby, or they could do muro ami and crush hundreds of corals and kill thousands of fish for the same amount of money. Compared to other uses for the reef, collection for the hobby is extremely high return for the amount of damage we do. While reducing our demand does reduce our impact, it only increases the impact of the other users.

Fragging at home does nothing to encourage responsible use of the reef. Promoting it as a solution only undermines the progress of coral farms that really can make a difference. If there's no demand for farm raised corals, no one is going to build farms. Yes, home fragging does have a place in the hobby, but not a conservation role.

 

[moonyguy]

I think the issue is with sustainability. Short of going back to the caves everything we do will alter the planet. So the best compromise is to balance the hobby needs with what nature can recover. I have been doing a study for setting up a "zero impact reef" but the biggest problem has been how to define zero impact. But I do agree that my reef tank has educated more people than I thought it would and make kids understand and care about them. So sustainable collection along with responsible reef keeping and education are the best balance I found.

 

[looser]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9557777#post9557777 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by moonyguy
I think the issue is with sustainability. Short of going back to the caves everything we do will alter the planet. So the best compromise is to balance the hobby needs with what nature can recover. I have been doing a study for setting up a "zero impact reef" but the biggest problem has been how to define zero impact. But I do agree that my reef tank has educated more people than I thought it would and make kids understand and care about them. So sustainable collection along with responsible reef keeping and education are the best balance I found.

I like the idea of a zero impact reef. Interesting concept and one well worth pursuing. Would require some type of alternative energy source, sustainable collection practices, a broad range of issues. I like it. Keep it up!