So what do you think?....

[Greatreefer]

I recently came across this article, and wondered what everyone's thoughts were on this?....
http://news.yahoo.com/hawaii-center-battle-over-aquarium-fish-051055234.html

 

[Barracuda68]

The article seems to be very one sided and biased. They never even mentioned the part of how the hobby has helped to start to rebuild reefs, or how alot or most of the fish and corals today n the hobby are tank bred and raised. I do however agree with the article on how they are poisoning thing with cyanide and disrupting the reefs with collection, but it would have been nice to at least mention some of the positives this hobby has given back. It is like any other hunting in or out of water. I must be managed responsibly.

 

[Da Maui life]

http://www.masna.org/Blog/tabid/430...solution-130s-Relationship-with-the-Data.aspx

 

[andex23]

I have yet to find a tank bred Yellow tang. I think Hawaii should provide incentives for tank breeding of their regional fish species funded by some sort of tax on wild fish collection.

it is a difficult discussion, the by catch from fishing boats has so much more impact than our collecting methods but that doesn't mean we should ignore our impact.

 

[andex23]

to add to that, I also think that once a species has been repeatedly successfully tank bred and reared we should ban the collection of that fish in the wild.

Clown fish come to mind. no need for wild clownfish ever. MAYBE to replenish breeder stocks, but not for retail consumption.

 

[pmrossetti]

from what I've read, there are very few tank raised salt water fish.
most fresh water are though.

 

[syrinx]

from what I've read, there are very few tank raised salt water fish.
most fresh water are though.

This is true. And furthermore, many of the captive bred fish are being line bred-like goldfish were. This destroys the diversity of the genetic pool over time. I am all for managed fisheries, but have no problems with wild caught fish. I just cannot understand how people think its fine and natural for a grouper to eat a basslet, but wrong for a man to capture it.

 

[ChimolaFish]

This is true. And furthermore, many of the captive bred fish are being line bred-like goldfish were. This destroys the diversity of the genetic pool over time. I am all for managed fisheries, but have no problems with wild caught fish. I just cannot understand how people think its fine and natural for a grouper to eat a basslet, but wrong for a man to capture it.

Well, because the grouper isn't completely erasing the basslet as a species from over fishing. I don't have a problem with wild caught fish, but I think it needs to be more controlled. If it means we have to pay extra for our animals, so be it. I have no problem paying more, since honestly, fish are some of the cheapest parts of aquariums.

 

[syrinx]

What fish have we caused to become extinct? As I said we can manage fisheries, as far as collection goes. Then again if the grouper did not exist-what fish would be able to exist without being preyed upon? And what benefit or detriment would this be to other fishes? My point is simply that there is no problem with using the earths resources-just like any other organism does. However we should use our conscience to have sustainable moderation. Remember the context here also- there was the suggestion of banning collection of common species- if they are captive bred.

 

[Alexraptor]

to add to that, I also think that once a species has been repeatedly successfully tank bred and reared we should ban the collection of that fish in the wild.

Clown fish come to mind. no need for wild clownfish ever. MAYBE to replenish breeder stocks, but not for retail consumption.

The world isn't black and white, and outright banning of wild collection does many times more harm than good.

A lot of people, especially island natives depend on the reef for their livelyhood, and it provides an extremely powerful incentive to protect it and care for it.
Remove that incentive and you open the doors for massive commercial exploitation that may very well permanently destroy local reefs.

Does commercial fishing and turning reef sand and limestone(live rock) into cement sound like a better alternative?

 

[GreshamH]

This is true. And furthermore, many of the captive bred fish are being line bred-like goldfish were. This destroys the diversity of the genetic pool over time. I am all for managed fisheries, but have no problems with wild caught fish. I just cannot understand how people think its fine and natural for a grouper to eat a basslet, but wrong for a man to capture it.

There's quite a few CBMOs. True there isn't by far as many as FW, but new species are being added at a decent pace.

Captive Bred Marine Ornemental List: 2014

 

[Timfish]

The world isn't black and white, and outright banning of wild collection does many times more harm than good.

A lot of people, especially island natives depend on the reef for their livelyhood, and it provides an extremely powerful incentive to protect it and care for it.
Remove that incentive and you open the doors for massive commercial exploitation that may very well permanently destroy local reefs.

Does commercial fishing and turning reef sand and limestone(live rock) into cement sound like a better alternative?

+1!!!! Here in Texas we've eliminated the biological controls for deer (mountain lions, wolves and the screw worm fly whose maggots eat fawns alive). If we did what the animal rights extremists want and banned hunting we would have a population explosion that would cause an increase in traffic accidents and have deer starving to death. On the reefs we've wiped out the apex predators, sharks and groupers, and stopping the collection of fish would certainly have unintended and undesirable effects. Looking at the situation in Hawai'i what was ignored in the article linked in the first post and what the extremists like Sea Shepard are ignoring is the ongoing research by Hawai'i's Division of Aquatic Resources, http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/reports-to-the-legislature/2010/dar/DAR10-Hawaii-Fisheries-2010.pdf show there is an inverse relationship between Yellow tangs and other species notably for us aquarists Achilles Tangs which have higher populations in the areas Yellow Tangs are collected than in the areas protected from collection.

 

[Mark9]

and stopping the collection of fish would certainly have unintended and undesirable effects.

Really?
Like what, a rebound of fish populations?

 

[GreshamH]

Really?
Like what, a rebound of fish populations?

Remove a larger money maker and the fishers will go back to food fishing, or worse.

I helped manage a collection station (from stateside) in Baja. The collectors there, if not collecting MO for a higher profit margin, will resort to food fishing, drug running or poaching fish/inverts (mainly abalone on the Pac side). In Island nations they have even less options. The value MO brings to the reef is a true blessing in some areas and can be highly managed as numerous sites have shown globally.

 

[Timfish]

Really?
Like what, a rebound of fish populations?

Well, first I suggest you read the research linked to. One of the interesting things the research being conducted showed (I want to emphasize the report I linked to is for the first 10 years but it is still ongoing and being conducted by marine biologists from several universities and the World Wildlife Fund, read the report for more details) is during the period of 1999 to 2009 there was an overall increase of the wild Yellow Tang population AND an overall increase in the number of Yellow Tangs collected for the aquarium market. To point out one of the concerns this research has shown and is being ignored by the animal rights extremists is while the Yellow Tang population did clearly increase in the protected areas the Achilles Tang populations were lower in the protected areas and HIGHER in the areas Yellow Tangs AND Achilles Tangs could be collected. Enacting a conservation measure which protects a few very abundant species at the cost of other significantly less abundant species does not strike me as the best way to solve our problem. Especially in light of the research showing the importance of the restoration of apex predators, in our case sharks, and the research showing the deleterious effects of sunscreen on reef systems. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2291018/

 

[syrinx]

These are the points missed by the majority of people, and I am glad to see them raised. Gresh knows from the experience of dealing with the reality of the islands, which I also share. And tim points out the whole aspect of action creating reaction when it comes to the ocean. As I have said before- we are a part of nature, and we can be "wise apex predators". But if we stop collecting yellow tangs for example, and there is no predator to replace us- some other species will suffer. Perhaps it would be algae, and with the loss of its co2 use of it the sea will acidify faster!

 

[Mark9]

Well, first I suggest you read ...

Yes, i'm sure the more fish we take out of the ocean will help their population increase.

 

[Timfish]

Yes, i'm sure the more fish we take out of the ocean will help their population increase.

It's called a Managed Fishery. An excellent example is the Atlantic stripped bass fishery that has rebounded very well since crashing in the early '80s when harvest was less than 2 million pounds and on average has been producing about 7 million pounds a year for the last ten years.