Is our hobby ethical?

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9572934#post9572934 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zoos
I think that our hobby as a whole is unethical, but it is how we go about it as individuals that matters. Hopefully my new tank will be 90% homegrown

How do you grow glass?

 

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9572780#post9572780 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by looser
Ok.. so the mid point is actually a gray area. I'll buy that. After all this isn't math.

So now the discussion becomes one of identifying issues and deciding where society puts each them in relation to the gray area, giving each a weighting, and then deciding if the overall impact is above or below the gray area.

I'll take a shot at a few the issues that come to mind.

- Taking live stock from the oceans. Clearly below the gray area. Moderate impact.

- Using energy which contributes to global warming. Clearly below the gray area. Moderate impact.

- Contributing to the understanding of coral reefs. Clearly above the gray area. Minimal impact.

Overall - Below the gray area (unethical as defined by the mid point). Minimal to Moderate impact.

I like it. Although when I regard ethics and this hobby I factor in things that are clearly above the gray area that help it become more ethical overall - such as inspiration and education that creates awareness and conscientiousness of the oceans.

 

[Rhodesholar]

I had to chime in here and offer my opinion on this matter.

The resources that we as reefers draw upon are re-newable resources. The coral we take will grow back, the fish will reproduce. The key here is management. The main problem is that human beings can't be trusted to not get greedy and thus wipe out an entire reef for short term gain, long term loss.

If we all want to be "ethical" then stop using fossil fuels, generating non bio degrable waste, and wasting/abusing resources.

Leave the world better then the way you found it and everything will be fine.

 

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9572074#post9572074 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sheol
What we do as hobbyists actually is very small compared to other factors as we have said. Silt, pollution, warming. If our hobby was made totally illegal today, I doubt a single coral reef could be saved.

Matthew

Don't fool yourself, collection for this hobby played a large part in the destruction of Phillipines reefs.

 

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9540787#post9540787 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
As far as our hobby is concerned they're interchangable. Mariculture is just marine aquaculture. Neither term implies anything about the production method.

I'm going to revisit this just because it's been bugging me. If what you say has any truth then why is aquaculture often called ex-situ and mariculture en-situ?

 

[Zoos]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9573083#post9573083 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
How do you grow glass?

lmao

 

[greenbean36191]

They're not going to keep collecting "dumptrucks" full of rock if their is no construction needs for it. Are you saying just because the revenue from the fish trade goes down there will be more demand for rock in the construction in that area? It just doesn't follow.

Construction demand is independent of marine aquarists. There is no relation.

No, there is no relationship between construction rates and collection for the hobby. The relationship is between the economics of building materials. Coral rock has always been a popular building material in the Pacific, but its more valuable as LR than building material. Basic economics says you sell to the highest bidder.

There is no relation. And everybody makes it out to be that the areas where specimens are collected everyone is whithering away of starvation - it's hardly the case. It's not their only source of income, it's one of many.

Look at how much the collectors are making. About $4-7 a week. Now ask yourself why they would be working for those wages. Also, look at the other economic opportunities and how they affect the reef.

Lastly, in the curio trade it's typically sharks, shells, starfish, seahorses, and puffers. I see this one as the least of our concerns. Harvesting algae (a multi billion dollar a year business) and shrimp mariculture probably has more of an impact on the wellfare of the reefs than the curio trade does.

The curio trade also collects lots of coral heads to bleach for decoration in fish tanks and don't forget that many of those animals you listed play important ecological roles themselves. One hypothesis for the explanation the COTS outbreaks is that one of their predators, the trumpet triton has been wiped out by overcollection for the curio trade.

In short, it's silly to not address problems for fear of other problems arrising or worsening. If everyone had the outlook you're taking very little would ever get accomplished in this world. Tackle each problem, and if new problems arrise you tackle those. Perhaps that's a little optimistic, but it's a hell of a lot better than things keeping on the way they are.

You should go back and re-read what I've said. You're fighting a straw man here. Ever since my first post I've been saying exactly what we should do. We have to offer other economic alternatives. If you think tourism is the answer, that would work too. I say aquaculture is easier since it only requires the producer to change their behavior rather than the producer and consumer.

If what you say has any truth then why is aquaculture often called ex-situ and mariculture en-situ?

You'll find in-situ and ex-situ/in-vitro being used with both term, aquaculture and mariculture.

 

[davidryder]

'unsubscribed'

 

[T Man]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9606376#post9606376 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
'unsubscribed'

DITTO

 

[jacmyoung]

I believe I am an ethical person, therefore my hobby is ethical. I forget who said this: "Don't give me all the facts, my mind is already made up!"