Which wild caught fish have the least impact on our oceans?
- Thread starter Reeferon
- Start date
Tayler
New member
there are many fish that are captive bred just look at this thread
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=324717
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=324717
jason2459
Well-known member
Liveaquaria also as a grouping of just the tank bred fish they sell.
http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/aquarium-fish-supplies.cfm?c=15+1500
http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/aquarium-fish-supplies.cfm?c=15+1500
Re: Which wild caught fish have the least impact on our oceans?
Think about the damage C02 is doing to the world and the PH of the oceans. The power for your reef produces C02 no matter the source. In addition, your aquarium produces C02 as a by product of life. You will probably have to shut it down once the EPA officially declares C02 a pollutant. And you may have to hold your breath as well. Don't worry about the fish, they won't make it much longer anyway. But on the other hand, they produce C02 and maybe should go anyway.
Think about the damage C02 is doing to the world and the PH of the oceans. The power for your reef produces C02 no matter the source. In addition, your aquarium produces C02 as a by product of life. You will probably have to shut it down once the EPA officially declares C02 a pollutant. And you may have to hold your breath as well. Don't worry about the fish, they won't make it much longer anyway. But on the other hand, they produce C02 and maybe should go anyway.
AquaticFins
Premium Member
...even if all us people died off today, the species we've hunted/driven to extinction aren't ever coming back.
Bangaii cardinalfish certainly aren't that far from extinction, which can be virtually exclusively blamed on the aquarium trade.
But to directly answer the original poster's question, I would suggest that the collection of damselfish is probably among the least harmful to the reef as a whole.
Bangaii cardinalfish certainly aren't that far from extinction, which can be virtually exclusively blamed on the aquarium trade.
But to directly answer the original poster's question, I would suggest that the collection of damselfish is probably among the least harmful to the reef as a whole.
There are several factors that go into answering this question. Fish that are monagamous, have low fecundity, take a long time to mature, and have limited ranges will be the least resiliant to the aquarium industry's fishery. Fishbase.org is a resource that can be used to help answer some of these questions. You than get into questions of whether it is better to take a large fish (breeder with highest fecundity) out of a population or smaller fish (could possibly soon be a breeder for a longer time if it survives). From there the environmental impact is also evaluated by its trophic level. Loss of herbivores might actually pose more harm than some higher up because of algae overgrowth of corals (as implicated in surgeonfish and parrotfish). However, higher up the tiers you tend to have smaller populations. Some fishes also perform necessary ecological roles such as many shark species eating weak and diseased individuals and cleaner wrasses controlling ectoparasites on other reef fishes.
I know that people out there probably have links as there has been some research done specifically on the aquarium industry (clownfish removal from anemones comes to mind). Try a journal search as well. You might also want to check out Bob Fenner's "The Conscientious Marine Aquarist" book.
I know that people out there probably have links as there has been some research done specifically on the aquarium industry (clownfish removal from anemones comes to mind). Try a journal search as well. You might also want to check out Bob Fenner's "The Conscientious Marine Aquarist" book.
cindre2000
New member
You should also consider the hardiness of the fish in question. This is part of the reason to buy aquacultured clowns, they ship better! If you lose 10 fish to get one, you are removing 11 fish from the environment. On the other hand, if you are removing 2 fish and getting 1 fish there is a much lower impact.
Not to mention, that providing a source of income to the people that collect the fish, can also have a positive impact. If you rely on the reef for income, you protect it, or at least, you don't destroy it.
Not to mention, that providing a source of income to the people that collect the fish, can also have a positive impact. If you rely on the reef for income, you protect it, or at least, you don't destroy it.
flying_dutchman
New member
SpankythePyro
New member
the ones with the most impact are the endemic species...however eventually they will all go extinct eventually.
the least impact are the most widespread (as long as they are not over collected)
the least impact are the most widespread (as long as they are not over collected)
lordofthereef
One reef to rule them all
This is an accurate statement, but we must also consider that extinction is a natural and necessary process that has been happening long before humans came along and will do so long after as well. I agree that something needs to be done with the impact humans have on extinction, but we must also not forget that over the span of time humans are responsbile for far less extinction than nature itself. The difference is we do it at a faster rate.
you might want to look at your selection a different way. rather limiting your species, limit where they are collected from. Some countries are a lot more strict in sustainable collecting and how fish are collected. Some of the better exporters will be from tonga, figi, hawaii, australia, and solomon islands.
langtudatinh01
New member
yeah, i have been visit Vietnam. they have corals and fish there. they do have saltwater aquarium, but a lot of rich people there do not care about the reef. first, the fish and corals are coming out of the sea there (this means cheapers to get). They do not have all necessary equipment or do not bother to take care for the fish. why would they care about light for corals when they can just replace them with a new one after couple of weeks. it is cost more for them to run electricity and equipments than fish and corals.
what i am saying is not everyone there do that. but i think a lot of countries with direct accesses to ocean or reefs do have this bad habbit. we do contribute to the problem of overfishing too. but at least we try to keep them alive and well.
what i am saying is not everyone there do that. but i think a lot of countries with direct accesses to ocean or reefs do have this bad habbit. we do contribute to the problem of overfishing too. but at least we try to keep them alive and well.
