Responsible Reefing Series #1- Unsuitable Species

[Anonymous]

Mary-
Can you update the list so we can see where we are? Or sort of recap where we are?

Rich--
Coral beauties (Centropyge bispinosa) and Rock beauties (Holocanthus tricolor) are different. Adult rock beauties must have sponge and juveniles eat slime from other fish.

Glenn

 

[tazdevil]

Nope, coral beauty (centropyge bispinosus ) is overall purple, with varying degrees of orange in their midsection. Rock Beauty's (holocanthus tricolor), on the other hand, are yellow overall, grow large, and have a black midsection.

 

[jamesw]

Mary,

After thinking about this for a bit, I would rather you not take any fish off the list right now.

The list should start out inclusive and fish should only be removed by a consensus agreement.

For example: I don't think it's fair for you to remove Shrimpfish just because Scott Michael says it is possible to keep them. Tullock says not to keep them. That IMO is NOT decided and it is hasty of you to remove them at this point.

This is just an example, but I believe it is a good one and one I am glad to see come up so soon.

If we were to follow this same path, pretty soon there wouldn't be too many fish left on that list. We are going to have conflicting info because that is the nature of the hobby.

I believe we should stick to the principle used by conservation organizations. When we don't have enough information to make an informed decision, we should err on the side of caution. That means leaving the fish on the list. This is called the ______ Principle (can't remember name...anyone, anyone?) and is widely used.

I hope that made sense, it's late.

For now, let's leave shrimpfish on the list.

Cheers
James

 

[JeremyR]

How commonly are they imported? I've never even seen a shrimpfish.. but I don't get a weekly fax from any of the big boys in LA either since I don't buy from any of them. Hehe.

 

[MaryHM]

Good detective work, Rover!

If that is the case, obviously shrimpfish shouldn't be added to the unsuitable list.

I have seen them imported at the big wholesalers- one that I worked at got about 20 a week. They always seemed to do fine in the holding tanks. However, "that which does fine for 2 days does not equal that which does fine for 2 months". (Ancient Chinese Proverb

). However, from what I've heard so far I think they're ok. Wish someone with some experience trying to keep them would chime in...

 

[naesco]

Upon reflection, I agree with comment that nothing is served by leaving.
What we should try to achieve here as we refine this forum is consensus based on what the experts like Michael, Tullock, Fenner and others and what we the reefers think or have experienced or seen ourselves.
I agree with James that we should try to move through the list or whatever coral or fish a reefer wants to discuss.
If we are really lucky and behave ourselves

maybe we can even get a Michael, Fenner or Tullock to comment.

 

[naesco]

Rover with practically all coral and fish there may be a means to feed them. For example some may require feeding 3 times a day from a pipe-ette.
They may require very special environments.
Do we as reefers want to see these fish and corals in LFS just like clowns and damsels?
Do we want to see beautiful dendronephthya for sale in the same tank as colts?

Tullock lists shrimpfish under Category 7 "Special requirements for this species, usually dietary needs, cannot be met by the home aquarist. Appropriate conditions for keeping this species are not yet defined."
"Shrimpfishes are tiny and generally spend their lives hanging nose down among the spines of a sea urchin. They require minuscule live foods to survive."
I did a full search on the internet and found very little about this fish that looks like a really skinny silver minnow or sardine.
Here are my personal comments based on what I read. This fish has no redeeming value. At the very best an expert reefer may be successful in keeping them in a tank alone or with a quiet fish like a mandarin. Very fussy feeding little tiny bits of food. More difficult than sea raised seahorses; similar to a pipefish.

 

[Blowfishaq]

I am with James on this one. The shrimp fish should stay on the list. I have kept one and it is very difficult. Mine lasted 7 months. All it takes is a few days away from home and the little guy is a goner. The wholesaler that got it for me said they get them by special request only as they do not do well in the common tank. I agree.

The mandarin is a lot more easy to care for. I actually have one that eats mysis shrimp. It comes right out as soon as I dump it into the tank. I know this is not common but it can happen.

Bryan

 

[jamesw]

There is another facet to this list as well. I think there should be fish that can be purchased but "by special order" only.

If only that was possible.

What I mean is I think it's ok to sell fish that are VERY difficult to keep and require special attention and feeding. Seahorses fit this bill. BUT, they shouldn't just show up every wednesday in the fish store. A hobbyist should have to order them through the LFS who would then order them through a Wholesaler, who would then order them from his Collector/Importer.

I've done this before w/ the Red Sea Regal angel and been successful. I'd be pissed off if I couldn't order one. BUT, I have NO interest in seeing them show up in the LFS "unannounced."

Cheers
James

 

[Anonymous]

I would agree with you James. Since shrimpfish are so small and not in great demand by the avarage aquarist, I assumed that they would fall into this category. Their diet did not fall into either of the categories defined in the beginning (too expensive, impossible) so I do not think that their importation should be banned. They are possible to take care of if one wants to and has the information neccessary. (A damsel could be just as hard to keep with enough ignorance on the hobyist part.) I think it is the wholesalers job to import captively viable species. I do not think it is their job to make sure that whoever buys it knows what they are doing. That in my opinion rests squarely on the LFS. As long as the wholesaler has knowledge that the animal can be successfully maintained in captivity I do not think it should be banned.

Glenn

 

[farmertodd]

James,

I think that's a pretty slippery slope. We're discussing a group of animals we're saying "we deplore the importation of for the masses", but then return with the fine print "it's ok for you to import it if you think you're good enough, and especially me because I'm good".

I had many so called "experts" walk into my shop and demand that I order them "species x" that I didn't feel they had met the necessary criteria, and I'd politely inform them that I wasn't interested in the sale. However, most retailers are more interested in staying in business than I was, and I don't really see where this starts and more importantly, where it ends.

I'd have to say that if you felt that it was important enough to not bring the animal in for everyone, then you should be able to be ok with the species selection you've given everyone else for your own tank. You're creating a stratification based on something as nebulous and unquantifiable as "skill", and I don't think that would be prudent to the purposes of this thread.

Basically, what I'm getting at is... There's absolutely no reason whatsoever for any retailer or wholesaler to even consider this list we're compiling, unless they felt that it was going to cost them. If we make the list, but then keep it open ended so we can still get *what we want*, then it sends a very very weak message. At that point, all this typing I feel, is a complete waste of effort.

Todd

 

[SPC]

And I will jump in and say I also agree with the special order category. The majority of the time if someone knows enough about the animal to special order it, then they would have done their homework on its special requirements.
Steve

 

[MaryHM]

To answer what's been posted...

Rich-N-Poor
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

While I appreciate the lists given so far it would be more helpful to me if someone could post a list of readily available fish to avoid.

This is something we can work on later. It's not the point of this thread, but is something I think is extremely important.

James:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

After thinking about this for a bit, I would rather you not take any fish off the list right now.

If shrimpfish will feed on brine, mysis, etc... they should not be included on the list. Maybe they should be considered for the "difficult to keep" species list we were talking about doing earlier. But to ban them I think would be silly.

Naesco
It's been brought to my attention that you posted earlier in a now empty post that this thread is being hid from the main hobbyist population of reefs.org. This could not be any further from the truth. Please note that I have posted twice over there inviting people to this specific thread, and I will continue to do so as we move along the list. Just because something is in a different section does not mean it is hidden. Your participation is appreciated in this forum, and you are more than welcome to post your own threads in on the main board inviting people over here.


We can not run around suggesting bans for animals that are "difficult" to keep. The animals need to fit the category of IMPOSSIBLE to feed or the food is TOO EXPENSIVE (like in the case of the SPS eating blenny). Both MAC and AMDA agree that a ban list should be small and limited to animals that truly deserve to be BANNED. Keep this in mind guys when you make your suggestions. Animals that truly meet ban criteria should be included, those in the "gray" area should not. A ban is black and white- therefore the requirements of the animals on the list should be also.

 

[Anonymous]

FWIW...
It wasn't simply the Michaels refernece that "took them off the list." But the Michaels reference and the anecdotal evidence from Charles. Does Tullock give a reason for banning their importation?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> Obligate feeders- Fish and inverts that are known to have an extremely specific diet that is either too expensive or impossible to provide in a captive environment. Many animals such as certain butterfly fish and nudibranchs fall in to this category.

<hr></blockquote>

If we are going by these guidelines I think it is acceptable to "take them off the list."

Glenn

 

[MaryHM]

The purpose of this forum is for the knowledge to be a two way street- industry learning from hobbyists AND hobbyists learning from industry. The main purpose of this thread is to help me help MAC and AMDA prepare good, solid, valid lists for their respective organizations. We can not just hand this list to industry professionals and say "follow this". We need the backing of existing organizations if anything is ever going to be done. This is not going to be a "Mary Middlebrook says" or "Reefs.org says" list. It is intended to help create the MAC and AMDA lists- both of which I am involved in.

Ok, I think we've done enough with the blenny and shrimpfish discussion, now it's time to move on to something more difficult- butterflies. This should be interesting! We need to know what each of the species feeds on or whatever problem is associated with that species that caused Tullock to put it on his list. Since the list is extensive, let's start with the first few:

chaetodontidae butterfly
C. aureofasciatus golden-striped
C. austriacus exquisite
C. baronessa eastern triangular
C. bennetti bennett's
C. citrinellus speckled

 

[naesco]

I also wanted to point out that the noted reefer, Bruce Carlson, Director of the Waikiki Aquarium spoke at a recent western Marine Conference.

"Among the fish, there are also many 'impossible species'.
At the top of the list are the obligate coral-feeding fish such as the ornate butterflyfish, and the long nose filefish, but some other fishes such as the SHRIMPFISH (mine).....also frequently fail to thrive in aquariums."

We need to also acknowledge that at this point in time only one reefer on this thread has actually kept them, they died and he feels they should remain on the list and be banned.

 

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

Butterflies..........? All mine are still sub adult......Caterpillars? -------Mary should not all adult fish be on a "Leave it on the reef list?" Does not one Adult Clown Trigger equal about a thousand baby ones ? I mean if only one in a thousand makes it from SubAdult to Adulthood?

 

[Bill2]

Interesting Point Capaccino.

I noticed Parotfish posted on the list for our discussion. Is this on the restricted list because we cannot provide what they eat or are they just unsuitable for a reeftank but ok with fish only tanks?

Bill

 

[MaryHM]

Just for the record, the butterfly discussion is now here http://www.reefs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=000024

Concerning the much discussed shrimpfish issue, I still think it falls into a gray area because the food they eat can be provided. We can leave it open to further discussion though. I think the guy who said his lived said it lived for 7 months. I wonder what the lifespan of one is?? If it's a year, I'd say he did pretty good.

Cappuccino- No, not all adult fish should be banned. Organizations such as Reef Check are in the process of doing management assessments for collection areas. If they prove that a sustainable harvest of adult clown triggers can be taken, there should be no ban in place to counter that. And how do you prove what is adult and what isn't?? You can't necessarily base it on size or coloration... Bans have to be black and white, not gray.

Bill- Would you be patient?? Sheesh. We haven't gotten to parrotfish yet, but I'll make sure you're the first to know when we do so you can chime in

 

[naesco]

Mary no the thread did not deal with hiding this forum from other reefers. I removed it because I changed my mind.
Correct me if I am wrong but the purpose of this forum is an opportunity to the industry to LISTEN to your customers and more particulary this thread deals with OUR demand that certain species voluntarily not be imported. The industry MAC and AMDA may already be preparing one. We will want them to add our recommendations.Hopefully industry will listen.
I find the comments to date very interesting and am looking forward to inviting further discussion to this forum as you have suggested.
Just a teensy weensy suggestion to you in your role as moderator. Moderators moderate. They intro discussion, probe, ask questions and are open to improvements. This should be a learning experience for all.