keeping captive marine oranisms

[kiel]

will start out by saying this topic will have some real potential for disagreements, however is one which i think should be explored for the benefit of the hobby...

i'm sure lots of people have been there in the past, and am sure a lot more people will go there in future, but for now, though i'd get this one going and see if we can produce something productive without it leading to smashed keyboard or a locked thread!

is it right keeping cative fish and coral, in addition to the side squire, is captive fish and coral propagation the more sustainable solution than harvesting them from the wild?

i've got a few thoughts on the issue, but am by no means dramtically inclined one way or the other....will let them go when the topic gets into full swing so they're a bit more purposeful..

but for now, what do you think?

 

[Captain Cayle]

I have no problem with taking SOME things from the ocean as long as it's done with good regulation and proper enforcement. In Florida, we have regulations and limits on what tropical fish you can collect. I think that is a good thing. In the end, it's no different than fishing if you're keeping the fish for food. You're still removing that fish from the breeding population. It needs to be accounted for so the population is kept at healthy levels.

However, poor third world countries are going to take advantage of it and they will rape and pillage the sea to make a dollar because there are no regulations. Here is where tank raised stuff is great.

I do have a problem taking corals from the sea. I think that should be outlawed all together. We do enough damage to the corals as it is and it's a finite resource.

 

[alton]

is it right keeping cative fish and coral, in addition to the side squire, is captive fish and coral propagation the more sustainable solution than harvesting them from the wild?

In the past 7 or 8 years I have fragged and sold I am guessing $6000 worth of coral from my aquariums. I know in one year I sold $800 worth of Xenia. My 300 has SPS, frogspawn, candy cane, mushrooms, kenyan tree that I have fragged or bought as frags from other members or fish stores that bought from individuals. In this 300 I do have 3 brains that came from the ocean, one which I have had for 10 years. Maybe we need to start a study on actually just how many corals are coming from the ocean versus someone elses tank? Another example in 2003/4 I bought a single head bright green candy cane frag for $10, in the last 8 months alone I sold at least 100 two headed frags to two fish stores. Someone once said that at the rate we are destroying our oceans the only place you will find a coral is in an aquarium. Example look at Florida where they are putting coral back into the ocean because they dissapeared. Think about it for every one angel that is caught for the aquarium trade how many more are eaten? On the Texas coast years ago they made it to where if you caught a redfish you had to release it if it was over 30" long. Doing this made sure there where plenty of redfish to spawn and to keep the numbers up. Today everyone can keep at least one 30"+ redfish because the numbers are so great. Maybe we need to try this in the aquarium trade?

 

[returnofsid]

I believe SUSTAINABLE collection, of reef inhabitants, is possible. I also believe that there are collection methods used, in some areas, that I'd not consider sustainable. I think more education needs to take place, in order to do away with all Non Sustainable collections.

All that being said, I do believe that Maricultured, Aquacultured and Tank Raised supply, are all better options, for the most part. Unfortunately, the process of breeding marine fish isn't currently able to supply enough variety. More work needs to be done, in that area.

 

[coralnut99]

I've been at this for a while. I bought corals from what may have been the very first internet-based livestock retailers. Anyone remember Flyingfishexpress and Etropicals.com? I think there's just a bit too much pessimism placed on just how much this hobby takes from the oceans and reefs anymore. There was a time, not that long ago, when maricultured, aquacultured, and basement/home-grown frags were stuff dreams were made of. As far as corals I think sheer economics has simply driven it to take far fewer wild-caught specimens and I would expect that trend to continue. Sadly it's spawned the designer-named micro-frag craze that's taking prices to ridiculous levels, but that's for another discussion. The reefs face far bigger obstacles that what is being chiseled off right now.
Aquacultured fish? Who would've dreamed of the number of species being offered today? Let's face it, there's really no longer any reason to import ANY clownfish species. Just like the FW hobby did over time, there were HUGE successes in people's basements and in small hatcheries that transformed the hobby. The SW side is just staring to see that. So again, I think there's greater cause for being optimistic here.

The changeover to captive-raised started happening years ago and it's in full swing.

 

[organism]

is it right keeping cative fish and coral, in addition to the side squire, is captive fish and coral propagation the more sustainable solution than harvesting them from the wild?

"Right" is a subjective term depending on who's using it, but anyone who doesn't feel it's right to keep fish and coral is probably a card carrying PETA member who is not on this site...

Coral and fish farming is the future, congress is for sure going to shut down the aquarium industry at some point due to hard lobbying by environmental groups, but that doesn't mean that wild coral harvesting is damaging reefs. It's not. There's tons of things that are destroying the world's reefs, but coral harvesting for the hobby is negligible to the point of being almost insignificant. Harvesting corals from the reef is as sustainable as captive raising them, but also helps feed starving people in third world countries.

I do think hobbyists should be more involved in addressing pollution, deforestation and dynamiting reefs, which are the real dangers to reefs worldwide, because for now those things are a necessity in less developed countries that rely on unsustainable deforestation and construction materials dynamited off the reef in order to grow.

 

[coralnut99]

I think Organism made the points much more clearly than I did.

This hobby will eventually become a political feather in the cap of someone who needs to be able to say they did something significant to save the reefs when in fact the reefs will still be grave danger and the resources could be used to achieve a much greater benefit.

 

[organism]

This hobby will eventually become a political feather in the cap of someone who needs to be able to say they did something significant to save the reefs when in fact the reefs will still be grave danger and the resources could be used to achieve a much greater benefit.

Yup, that's what's going to kill imports in the end. You can't see Indonesia's unsustainable deforestation and pollution in your town, but anyone can see a fish store so it's used as a shining example of a problem no one understands, which is why environmentalist groups have already latched onto our hobby and are lobbying hard to shut it down with their usual packs of lies on top of lies. I'm sure the same people who brought you the sea kittens campaign are working hard on the next coral kittens campaign.

Their argument is the same as the one against logging: any tree/coral taken from nature stops existing and is irreplaceable. Nevermind that new ones grow in their place, what's important is stopping mankind from taking that one.

On a side note, once they get imports banned it's for sure not stopping there, they're already pushing for banning interstate transport of marine species without soon-to-exist licensing. I think within the next decade this hobby is going to change considerably... Besides, it wouldn't take a country-wide ban to partially nuke this hobby, if CA passed some anti-coral measure, and most corals come from here (along with power hungry environmentalists), then that would work as well. Chances are at least a few other states would soon follow.

 

[GreshamH]

Yup, that's what's going to kill imports in the end. You can't see Indonesia's unsustainable deforestation and pollution in your town, but anyone can see a fish store so it's used as a shining example of a problem no one understands, which is why environmentalist groups have already latched onto our hobby and are lobbying hard to shut it down with their usual packs of lies on top of lies. I'm sure the same people who brought you the sea kittens campaign are working hard on the next coral kittens campaign.

Their argument is the same as the one against logging: any tree/coral taken from nature stops existing and is irreplaceable. Nevermind that new ones grow in their place, what's important is stopping mankind from taking that one.

On a side note, once they get imports banned it's for sure not stopping there, they're already pushing for banning interstate transport of marine species without soon-to-exist licensing. I think within the next decade this hobby is going to change considerably... Besides, it wouldn't take a country-wide ban to partially nuke this hobby, if CA passed some anti-coral measure, and most corals come from here (along with power hungry environmentalists), then that would work as well. Chances are at least a few other states would soon follow.

I doubt it'll be a state measure, especially in CA. I actually have a little faith in CA F&G (I've been working with them for 20+ years) not being in favor of such a ban. The Feds have attempted numerous bills you and I have watched fail... one of those will take, it's just a matter of time. Personally I bet the invasive angle is the one that will be used (cutting off all wild imports) or the CBD making good on their lawsuit threat.

 

[greenbean36191]

that doesn't mean that wild coral harvesting is damaging reefs. It's not. There's tons of things that are destroying the world's reefs, but coral harvesting for the hobby is negligible to the point of being almost insignificant. Harvesting corals from the reef is as sustainable as captive raising them, but also helps feed starving people in third world countries.

I agree with you that sustainable collection has an important role in conservation of the reefs and that no one with any interest in protecting the resource should be pushing for an outright ban. However, there's no way to say that collection for the hobby as it stands today is insignificant to the health of the reef. That's nothing more than wishful thinking because the work to show that simply hasn't been done.

Also, the question of whether the hobby is damaging the reef doesn't occur in a vacuum. If 10,000 tons of of coral are harvested to make lime and 100 lbs are harvested for the hobby, but the reef can only sustainably support exactly 10,000 tons, harvesting those 100 lbs for the hobby is still unsustainable no matter how you do it. Nature doesn't know or care who takes more, only the total amount that's taken. You can't argue that the maximum sustainable yield is already exceeded by the construction industry, but the aquarium industry takes less, so it's non-damaging. ANY additional harvest beyond the MSY is damaging.

 

[coralnut99]

So there should be no further harvest of corals for the hobby because there's already too much destruction to the reefs caused by the construction industry?

We can argue the point in either direction for years.

My reasoning simply starts with using resources, knowledge,manpower, etc. to stop the boulder rolling down the mountain instead of picking up the small stones it kicks up on the way. Boulders like pollution, and fishing trawlers dragging nets along the sea floor that are long enough to wrap around the town I grew up in are rolling down the mountain and running over the reefs. The damage is real, it's documented, and it's readily visible. Some congressman or even an entire organization tying up limited resources to reign in this hobby, while not even understanding it, really seems like somebody just picking up a few stones while the boulder passes him by.

 

[Paul B]

I have mixed feelings about this as I have been to many poor Islands in the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Many people make their living harvesting fish and corals and many of the fish we keep are commonly eaten in those places. There are no great fisheries in the tropics like we have here in the north. No large fishing fleets due to the abundance of life in northern waters so in the tropics people need to harvest and eat the colorful fish that we thinik of as a hobby. I have seen old men fishing with their Grandchildren using hermit crabs for bait. If they don't catch anything, they don't eat breakfast.
I have seen people using huge nets near the beach and dragging what would sell here for thousands of dollars worth of fish on to the beach where the fish would die while people would buy them for food. What ever does not sell is thrown back into the sea. I saw many large lookdowns in St Lucia sold for fifty cents a pound for food.
All of the by catch is thrown out as it is considered trash there.
On some of these places it would be much better is we could buy some of those "trash" fish for our tanks as they would die anyway, but no one polices that aspect of commerce on those Islands.
Before we started keeping corals as living organisms I saw on Jamaica literally tons of corals on the streets being bleached to remove the flesh so the dead skeletons could be sold to tourists. If you dive in Jamaica now the reefs a few miles from shore look like a desert.
If you fly to the South Pacific you will see many deserted Islands and Atols, some that are not too far from civilization. One of those could be used to farm corals for the pet trade without destroying reefs all over the place. Black pearl oysters and tridacna clams are already farmed on small Tahitian Islands that have no tourist activity.
These animals grow like weeds there and need no help from us.
I feel, and hope that in the near future some of these practices can be put to use but unfortunately with all the poverty in the tropics, it will take a long time. If you have the choice of feeding your family by selling coral or starving I think you would do some collecting. I know I would.
I took this picture on a tiny island off Bora Bora. That restaurant in the lower picture is the only thing I saw on the Island. Those "rocks" under the pier are tridacna clams that grow like weeds.

This is also in Tahiti, corals take up every inch of space. I think one square mile of a place like this could supply all of the coral in the trade and it could also be farmed there to keep it sustanable.
It grows very fast in these places.

Same place

This by contrast is the Caribbean (I think it was the Caymans) where due to tourists and human population you don't find huge reefs in pristine condition.

 

[organism]

If 10,000 tons of of coral are harvested to make lime and 100 lbs are harvested for the hobby, but the reef can only sustainably support exactly 10,000 tons, harvesting those 100 lbs for the hobby is still unsustainable no matter how you do it.

I disagree with that logic, that's kind of like saying that since there's a water shortage in your neighborhood and your block only has 10,000 gallons, but your neighbor uses 9,990 gallons to water his lawn, that the 100 gallons you use to eat and shower with is unsustainable. What's unsustainable no matter how you do it is your neighbor using it all, the fact that there's only crumbs left for everyone else that has an equal right to the resource doesn't make those crumbs unsustainable since they're part of a much bigger picture.

Just because one guy's eating all the pie, it doesn't mean the people that ate one spoonful are in the wrong because there was only half a spoonful left. What needs to be addressed is the guy eating all the pie.

 

[greenbean36191]

Nature doesn't care if you're getting your fair share or who is to blame for exceeding the MSY- i.e. eating all of the pie. All it "knows" is the sum of resource use.

It's just like a bank. If you have $1000 of disposable income in a joint account, the bank doesn't know and doesn't care that it was your wife who spent $800 on shoes and you only spent $300 on your tank. All that matters to them is that you spent $100 more than you deposited, and your account will decrease to reflect that. Neither you nor your wife can call your spending sustainable in the context of total spending.

So there should be no further harvest of corals for the hobby because there's already too much destruction to the reefs caused by the construction industry?

No. As I said before, I don't support a ban on harvest for the hobby and I think very few people in the conservation world do (at least in academia- conservation lobbies are a different story). Sustainable harvest for the hobby has an important role to play in protecting the reefs and providing value to locals, precisely as Paul talked about.

There is no sustainable harvest level of a resource that is already over-exploited though. We cannot discuss sustainable harvests while ignoring the context of competing uses. If we want the trade to be sustainable we have to do 4 things. 1) Harvest from areas with few competing extractive uses (e.g. Hawai'i). 2) Avoid areas that are already over-exploited or in which the resource we're interested in is already in decline. 3) Limit our harvest so that the sum of all uses is below the MSY, even if that means we don't get an equal share of the pie. 4) Minimize the impacts of competing uses (i.e. push to reduce coral mining and poor farming practices) so that we can get a more equitable share.

 

[kiel]

like a couple of others here i have mixed feelings.....

of the first fish i bought for my aquarium were a ocellaris clown pair, which i found out later had been wild caught. the female developed a stress induced infection not long after being add to the tank, and at first wouldn't eat. the male has only literally two days ago come down from almost constantly being back-up in the corner of the tank for the past 5-6 months and started hosting in the catalaphyllia i provide for them. the female is still not comfortable to come down from the corner

that isn't an argument one way or the other, just a real life scenario i've experienced that's part of my inspiration for this topic

with regards to fish, the way i see it, if we can provide everything they need to be happy and healthy, and aren't depriving them of anything they would be exposed to in their natural habitat (other than predators!), i don't see anything wrong with it

are we providing that? i think some people probably are, and some probably aren't, but i think that's just part of the overall learning process

keeping an oceanic shark or whale in a small captive enclosure for hobby purposes on the other hand for example, i would see as wrong, based on the premise that those animals are long range swimmers, and unless you are able to provide them with a vast expanse of ocean (be it real or simulated) which accurately reflects the environment from which they came, it's going to feel that to the detriment of it's time alive. for research purposes which are going to expose them to conditions which they would otherwise not experience outside of our influence, i think the potential benefits to the ecosystem as a whole are cause to allow it

i personally don't see why captive propagated coral should be considered more sustainable than that harvested from the wild. i think providing it's done in a considered manner with every effort made to understand the impact it has and it's long term implications there shouldn't be any reason to prohibit it

with regards to both i think the chemistry we play in trying to maintain our aquariums and reflect the conditions in nature may have long term genetic implications on captive organisms - this such reason is why returning captive marine organisms to the wild once they have been harvested from nature is strongly prohibited here in australia

any sort of human contact is going to influence an animals condition. just exposing fish to daily feeding routines, irregular water parameter fluctuations, and even just general interaction will have an influence on what they are

but is this a bad thing?

a lot of people are of the opinion that any sort of human activity is a bad thing, and separate us as a destroyer of nature, but we are every bit a part of nature as everything else. our cities are equally natural to a termite mound, bee hive, or any other shelter produced by an organism.....our technology is no different to any other animal using their surroundings to their advantage. sure we're having an impact, but so can any other animal, a beaver can decimate an eco system, even some corals produce toxic wastes.....providing a sustainable balance is struck everything works

various different animals interact in nature, are currently forging new interactions, and will forge new interactions in future that reshape our constantly changing eco system, so i don't necessarily think that human interference (if you want to call it that) in nature is bad

our artificial reefs are a hit with the ocean crew for example...both native and scuba

 

[jong11]

This was one of the issues I thought hard about before geting into the hobby. I decided that I would try to only buy captive bred fish and corals. There are enough hobbists and dealers out there selling coral frags and fish that this is possible and probably cheaper to do so.

 

[GreshamH]

This was one of the issues I thought hard about before geting into the hobby. I decided that I would try to only buy captive bred fish and corals. There are enough hobbists and dealers out there selling coral frags and fish that this is possible and probably cheaper to do so.

How can you truly know if your coral is "propagated" given the rampant chop shopping of wild pieces and pawing them of as propagated frags?

 

[DoubleM 10]

Well like others here i see both sides.

If i had to pick one i would say its ok. this is bacause what the hobby does to the hobby is nothing compared to what other sources do. Now im not a fan of the way they are harvested. nets and other stressful means. Im also not a fan of the way they are shipped. Small bags in coolers found at 7-11 and then in cardboard boxes.

IMO fish and coral are no less of a lifeform than us or dogs are. they get better treatment during shipping than the fish do.

from what i have seen in the LFS some of the fish show up dead. i could only imagine how many fish we lose just in shipping and collection alone.

If we start collecting from places that have no human traffic all the prices will up. cause then humans will have to protect from people who will want to eventually want to harvest their and we will have to maintain them also. Some of the prices for the animals we collect are up thier to begin with.

It is nice to see companies that breed animals for the hobby. they are not take away from the ocean and thats great i think.

I agree with the person who said that some of the coral in our hobby is traded amongst us and not from the ocean. so this would have to be taken into consideration also.

 

[seanathen]

I believe that frags taken from captive tanks are better suited to captivity in general. And each successive frag from the original is going to be that much hardier.

But look, the bottom line is that all of us like new and pretty. We don't just want the same looking tank as the next guy, and that means some how new stuff has to come to market. That new stuff can only come from the ocean. I personally believe that imports should go to specialized facilities to ensure their success in captivity. Then if they are successful, they can be fragged and shipped out to the masses. If there were 50 such import coral specialists in the US, there would be plenty of competition. We could also control what was actually coming in and get a better handle on fatalities and volume of coral reef that was actually being removed from the ocean. Just my two cents....

 

[Rascalson]

What is conspicuous in some on the fence statements such as " I don't support a ban on blah blah blah" is what does the person saying that actually support? I could say for instance that I don't support a ban on private ownership of handguns while actually supporting an ammunition licensing scheme. It would be nice if people were a little clearer and more up front with such debates. Just like the actual items of debate in this thread. These things are not actually that complicated. The hobby has absolutely nothing to do with hurricanes, climate change, ocean chemistry, dynamiting reefs, stupid tourists trampling over reefs or snorkeling with a toxic soup covering there body, poor regulation of various agriculture chemicals used too near shores or inlets, local municipal dumping on the coast, etc etc etc. Yet as these topics have come up time and time again I always see a few posts that seem to tie all those other things together as " the collective" damage to the reef. What? By inference some of you are saying that if the hobby doesn't take some regulation then how can those other things be regulated or curbed? Or, well we will never be able to change such and such so we may as well neuter our hobby Really? What wonderful self flagellation, the rich guy on the coast cares not one snot how much fertilizer his lawn gets or alternative grass types, hit me!!! Harder!!!! Much is also made of some of the reefs that are now gone, gone when and how? Oh' thats right as someone posted further up some of those where destroyed in the time "BEFORE" modern day reefing practice. Also, not to get too US Centric but in case any of my fellow Americans haven't noticed we aren't exactly at the very top of the global economy food chain. So even if we heavily regulate the US market how much is that actually going to effect the global market for coral and ornamental fish? Going to send in the marines and tell that local that has learned someone out there wants that pretty creature from the sea to stop? Think maybe he might just find someone else to sell it too? Think maybe if he can't export a little live coral that he will just go back to exporting A LOT of DEAD coral?