Is there a reason why...

[Wolverine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13587586#post13587586 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by terimar
Who should I believe about the status of Bangai Cardinals? jhildebrand or Bob Fenner? Every penny I spend on anything is a concious decision based on all the pertinent facts that I'm aware of. A dollar is a dollar regardless of what percentage of whatever I choose to spend it on it represents.

I think the link above should help answer your question on whom to believe. As for being conscious of every penny, if that's the case, then I'd suggest you look at the whole issue. Lately (meaning the last 4-5 years), WC banggai have had dismal survival records, probably under 25%. TR have much better survival if kept in good conditions (near 100%). That being the case, if you get tank-raised, at your price of $25, your average cost will be around $50 to get a pair. With a survival of 33% (say 1/3 survive) with WC at $10-12/fish, your average cost will be $60-72 to get a pair. The numbers are even worse if the survival is worse than the 33%; based on the ones I've seen, it's much worse than that (I've seen some stores that end up with around 1/20 surviving more than a few weeks, even after they've gone out to customers).

 

[terimar]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13596626#post13596626 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jhildebrand
Are you kidding me? One guy who could be considered an expert has a differing opinion from virtually everyone else - never mind that he hasn't done an actual scientific study- and his word is law? By the way, I never claimed to be right when it comes to their status, but based on the information available to the general public this species is not doing well and could be in trouble shortly. It would be completely ignorant to think otherwise...

So if I don't agree with you I'm ignorant? I see! Intelligent discourse is impossible with someone who resorts to namecalling. In regards to the cost effectiveness of WC vs TR you have a valid point if all we're talking about is percentages, which you seem to enjoy doing! But fish are not statistics they are individuals. A practiced eye can look at a tank of fish and choose those which appear unhealthy or are not acting normally and remove those fish from the equation. Not that I have that eye, but I have a very good personal relationship with a neighbor who manages a LFS who does, and additionally he's able to tell me how long a fish has been in the store, how it eats, etc. Any successful poker player will tell you that odds are for the suckers, and information is power!

 

[Wolverine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13601731#post13601731 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by terimar
But fish are not statistics they are individuals. A practiced eye can look at a tank of fish and choose those which appear unhealthy or are not acting normally and remove those fish from the equation. Not that I have that eye, but I have a very good personal relationship with a neighbor who manages a LFS who does, and additionally he's able to tell me how long a fish has been in the store, how it eats, etc. Any successful poker player will tell you that odds are for the suckers, and information is power!

True, fish are not statistics, however, if you look at the big picture, someone is getting bitten by those unhealthy fish. More importantly, when they first come in, they eat fine, they look fine, the act perfectly healthy (most of them); they just don't do well long term. Sure, it's nice to know how long a fish has been in the store; the stores I go to list that on the side of their tanks (and they tell you when the TR fish were born and who raised them, since many of them are produced locally).

Just as with picking the sex of a banggai, you end up playing the odds. If it makes you feel better to think that you're not, so be it.

 

[jhildebrand]

Look terimar, I didn't pose this question so someone could come out and say the experts are wrong. Up until this week you could buy ivory on Ebay, but that doesn't mean elephants aren't threatened. You can always find one scientist or expert that goes against all of his peers and has a different opinion. I respect Bob's thoughts as well. However, that doesn't automatically mean he's right. That's all I'm saying - It would be ignorant to think otherwise. Please don't now tell us that your LFS manager knows everything because then I might come right out and call you ignorant. That would be namecalling.

I don't post in "responsible reefkeeping" to have people try to make me look like an idiot when all I was trying to do was get a dialogue started on a topic that I think is important to all of us. This question applies to all species of fish, not just the cardinals.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would hope that the vast majority of people in this community would favor spending a little more money to have not only healthy livestock, but healthy wild populations as well.

You can say whatever you want in response. I'm not going to go back and forth and argue over who is right and who is wrong if you have a differing opinion. If more people want to chime in on the subject it would be nice to see what other people think. At this point we need to agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughts, but it's time to play nice...

 

[terimar]

Please be specific about my lack of niceness. All I did was disagree with you. And funny you should mention elephants! I have a beautiful pair of elephant hide boots. They were made from elephants culled by rangers in protected areas to prevent overpopulation due to the limited acreage available for them, which is the real problem. A portion of the proceeds went to the rangers themselves as they are woefully underfunded and often go long periods without pay and have to buy their own weapons and ammunition to fight off poachers. Think of how much more revenue could be generated by the sale of the ivory as well. You have to get past the hype and the feelgood stuff and get down to brass tacks.

 

[jhildebrand]

Props to you on the elephant boots and the story behind them. I'm going to go ahead and just guess though that any ivory you and I could get through the internet has a fairly high probability of being poached. I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm certainly not a tree-hugger. You're actually making the same point as I am about the fish. If you know where it's coming from and it's responsible and sustainable, it's okay. If we don't have a clue where the fish are coming from and there are areas where said fish are in deep trouble, why wouldn't we leave them alone when there's a captive option available?

 

[ginger7286]

Ok enough with the poor elephants. I agree some fish breed more readily in captivity than others but,....don't think these island countries or nations give one thought about the fate of fish species. They are more interested in their economy and $$$ then the depeltion of the stock in the oceans. Once the fish have been used up they will simply find another item to deplete....corals, inverts, etc.
When I was new in this hobby I did not know about tank raised fish (had I even known a little something half my fish would not be in my tank). Had I known how these fish are caught by the hundreds, stressed, shipped (sometimes poorly) purchased, many times due to their colors (the purchaser knows nothing about the species or how to care for it) only to die from stress or slow starvation in a small tank.
Education is the way to informed decisions. If we the aquarist do not purchase/demand these fish we can control the destiny of their species and survival. It is our responsibility and dedication that will allow this hobby to advance and grow for future generations.

 

[jhildebrand]

Agreed. Our demand and willingness to buy puts undue stress and pressure on certain species, some of which have no business being kept in our tanks. On the other hand, we're keeping species that were thought to be impossible to keep 10 or 20 years ago. If it weren't for experimenting with them it would not be possible today. Still, we have a bit of responsibility to educate ourselves and others if we want this hobby to continue as we know it. You're right about the local economies. A lot of them don't know or care about the fate of the fish they catch. It's just another day, another dollar, until it's gone. We're part of the problem if we choose to buy marine species we know are in trouble.

 

[noboddi]

Bob Fenner is the conscience of the industry, and if he says it's okay, who am I to contradict?

My personal philosophy is to buy tank raised fish and coral frags whenever I can, even if they cost more. When that isn't practical, I deal with reputable people and only fish/corals I can keep, and only species that are common, prolific, and meet CITES guidelines.

 

[JNye]

This is very interesting topic, I have not heard that these fish may actually be in no danger. I guess we really don't know for sure.
The point I'd like to make is about the survival rate statistic. You always have to analize why these numbers could be the way they are...newbies(bad tank conditions) are much more likely to purchase WC. Experienced keepers (in the know) are much more likely to SEEK out and buy TR. This would certainly skew the survival rate numbers.

 

[jhildebrand]

It's anyone's guess who is right and wrong . Again, with all respect to Mr. Fenner, if there is ample evidence to support that this species are in trouble we need to be more responsible in our importing and purchasing habits.

If there's even a risk of an issue, it'd be nice if we made an effort to sticking to the raised fish when we can. Also, unfortunately some hobbyists, especially newbies, see fish that are less than $30 as somewhat 'disposable'. That always gets to me.

There are, as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread, people that don't think we need to err on the side of caution on this topic. When I think back to how irresponsible I was when I started in this hobby it saddens me. Animals suffered due to my complete ignorance. I'd like to think that we've advanced now to the point where we can responsibly keep enough species that there's no reason to put any one type of fish or invert at risk.