I need to make a couple points here because I believe there is some bad information being thrown around.
First, the "99 out of 100 fish die" statement. Actually 100% of fish die, but I'll get to that in a second. I am not aware of a solid study of the mortality rate of collected aquarium fish... I'm talking an UNBAISED "RECENT" STUDY that followed the chain of custody of fish on several shipments from collection to hobbyist and used statisticians to reasonably determine the true average mortality rate. The 99 out of 100 was a number pushed by Snorkel Bob of the Sea Sheppard who is 100% against anything leaving the ocean for humans. He often lies and twists facts to push his agenda. He's also not alone. The recent debacle with the Centers for Biological Diversity requesting the NOAA place 66 coral species under protection from the ESA with absolutely zero science to back up their request is another prime example of a group of people who believe nothing should leave the ocean. Of course now the list is down to 20, yet still without any science. So, until someone can provide the unbiased study nobody knows and everything else is conjecture.
Also, some fish can live up to 20 years while others only live a year or so. For example, the common Neon goby lives less than 2 years, probably less than 1, in my experience. So species would also need to be taken into consideration. There's also another fact that must be taken into consideration and that is the health of the fish that were collected. Contrary to popular belief, many fish succumb to disease and parasites in the wild and therefore would have died regardless if collected or not. Furthermore, from a financial viability standpoint, 99 out of 100 is likely not a sustainable business model. So again I question that number. Some argue that number includes post sale and under the hobbyist possession, but I find it unlikely anyone can put a solid number on that without putting in a lot of effort and work. I recently purchased 20 fish and they were put through a 6 week qt with copper and prazipro and only 2 fish died. That's a 90% survival rate. Of course I'm not a novice either. But overall, if you average out the novice to experienced hobbyist my guess is a lot of fish do actually survive for a period of time that I would describe as successful. Which leads me to my next point and back to my 100% of all fish die.
Well actually 100% of everything alive, dies, including you. Ahh, see what I'm doing here
.... Not everything has the luxury of living a full life and dying of old age, especially in the ocean. Everything in the ocean has a predator. Even those at the top of the food chain have predators. My point is this, if 100 baby Blue Hippo Tangs are collected for the aquarium trade and 10 of them survive in captivity to live complete full lives, that is likely a better survival rate than in the wild as probably only 1 out of 100 would avoid being preyed upon or falling victim to disease or parasites. These numbers of course are all made up, but I think you get my point.
Now as far as choosing livestock wisely, I couldn't agree more. It is morally wrong to put a pet fish in the wrong environment and the Blue Hippo Tang is likely at the top of the list. Some would argue, the aquarium trade is not moral to begin with and I, as well as you probably disagree. What's the difference in me keeping a Blue Hippo Tang in the right environment for 20 years vs. me catching an adult Blue Hippo Tang and eating it? Nothing. Either action is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. I'm sure Snorkel Bob and his crony friends are typical just like many people in this world, especially those with power, "Do as I say, not as I do!"
First, the "99 out of 100 fish die" statement. Actually 100% of fish die, but I'll get to that in a second. I am not aware of a solid study of the mortality rate of collected aquarium fish... I'm talking an UNBAISED "RECENT" STUDY that followed the chain of custody of fish on several shipments from collection to hobbyist and used statisticians to reasonably determine the true average mortality rate. The 99 out of 100 was a number pushed by Snorkel Bob of the Sea Sheppard who is 100% against anything leaving the ocean for humans. He often lies and twists facts to push his agenda. He's also not alone. The recent debacle with the Centers for Biological Diversity requesting the NOAA place 66 coral species under protection from the ESA with absolutely zero science to back up their request is another prime example of a group of people who believe nothing should leave the ocean. Of course now the list is down to 20, yet still without any science. So, until someone can provide the unbiased study nobody knows and everything else is conjecture.
Also, some fish can live up to 20 years while others only live a year or so. For example, the common Neon goby lives less than 2 years, probably less than 1, in my experience. So species would also need to be taken into consideration. There's also another fact that must be taken into consideration and that is the health of the fish that were collected. Contrary to popular belief, many fish succumb to disease and parasites in the wild and therefore would have died regardless if collected or not. Furthermore, from a financial viability standpoint, 99 out of 100 is likely not a sustainable business model. So again I question that number. Some argue that number includes post sale and under the hobbyist possession, but I find it unlikely anyone can put a solid number on that without putting in a lot of effort and work. I recently purchased 20 fish and they were put through a 6 week qt with copper and prazipro and only 2 fish died. That's a 90% survival rate. Of course I'm not a novice either. But overall, if you average out the novice to experienced hobbyist my guess is a lot of fish do actually survive for a period of time that I would describe as successful. Which leads me to my next point and back to my 100% of all fish die.
Well actually 100% of everything alive, dies, including you. Ahh, see what I'm doing here
.... Not everything has the luxury of living a full life and dying of old age, especially in the ocean. Everything in the ocean has a predator. Even those at the top of the food chain have predators. My point is this, if 100 baby Blue Hippo Tangs are collected for the aquarium trade and 10 of them survive in captivity to live complete full lives, that is likely a better survival rate than in the wild as probably only 1 out of 100 would avoid being preyed upon or falling victim to disease or parasites. These numbers of course are all made up, but I think you get my point. Now as far as choosing livestock wisely, I couldn't agree more. It is morally wrong to put a pet fish in the wrong environment and the Blue Hippo Tang is likely at the top of the list. Some would argue, the aquarium trade is not moral to begin with and I, as well as you probably disagree. What's the difference in me keeping a Blue Hippo Tang in the right environment for 20 years vs. me catching an adult Blue Hippo Tang and eating it? Nothing. Either action is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. I'm sure Snorkel Bob and his crony friends are typical just like many people in this world, especially those with power, "Do as I say, not as I do!"
Last edited:
