Responsible Reefing Series #1- Unsuitable Species

[Anonymous]

I understand your position.............yet to worry about the sand I take home on my beach sandals contributing to beach erosion and yes , it can be shown to contribute................ .but it is a poor use of concern, I dont agree that because a fish is hardy in captivity ,that this means we {the hobby} can take all of them from the sea......the issue of weather a fish is hardy in captivity or not plays no role in the health of the reef........

are you saying, then, that a species that does well in captivity has the same need of rate of replacement for aquariums as one that doesn't do well?
i would think that a fish that can easily be kept for 5 yrs. in captivity does not need to be collected as frequently as one that can only be kept for a month, to satisfy hobbyist 'demand'.

and are you saying that the frequency of collection of a species does not impact on the amount in the wild?
i would think that removing 5x of one species than another would impact 5x on the former, as opposed to the latter.

where does your sand analogy apply?

 

[Anonymous]

are you saying, then, that a species that does well in captivity has the same need of rate of replacement for aquariums as one that doesn't do well?
i would think that a fish that can easily be kept for 5 yrs. in captivity does not need to be collected as frequently as one that can only be kept for a month, to satisfy hobbyist 'demand'.

Your logic is somewhat flawed. If the fish that can be kept for 5 yrs in captivity is purchased 100x more frequently then the one that can be kept for only a month, then the 5 yr fish will have to be collect more frequently.

 

[Anonymous]

are you saying, then, that a species that does well in captivity has the same need of rate of replacement for aquariums as one that doesn't do well?
i would think that a fish that can easily be kept for 5 yrs. in captivity does not need to be collected as frequently as one that can only be kept for a month, to satisfy hobbyist 'demand'.

Your logic is somewhat flawed. If the fish that can be kept for 5 yrs in captivity is purchased 100x more frequently then the one that can be kept for only a month, then the 5 yr fish will have to be collect more frequently.

logic dictates to me that your proposed situation is the opposite of what should occur.example:a hobbyist wants to keep a maroon clown, and a powder blue tang-the maroon lives for five years in his tank, the tang lives for one month-the hobbyist has to purchase more tangs than clowns to satisfy his demand :roll: (to satisfy his demand)-meaning, also that more tangs have to be removed from the ocean.

 

[Anonymous]

If for every one hobbiest who wants a PBT there are 100 hobbiest that would like a maroon clown then my logic stands.

 

[Anonymous]

And you assume that people keep killing the same fish over and over. In my experience that's usually not the case. The "fish replacers" usually spread the death around pretty evenly. Take goniopora for example, I don't sell it but I rarely have people come looking for it. The response usually is, " I bought a goniopora and it died, I'm not going to try that one again."

Glenn

 

[flameangel1]

Ethical conclusions on the above messages are,
Don't import or stock the Powder Blue tangs and Do stock TANK_RAISED Maroon clowns !!!!!!
That will help the reef and satisfy the hobbyists and be the best solution for all.
If we tell the hobbyist WHY we do not stock the PB's, they will appreciate the fact that we DO care about the reefs and we DO CARE about the hobbyist and his success.
Honestly, it will work and they do understand!!

 

[SPC]

IMO most PBTs are purchased because they are seen in the LFS, which is the same thing I think Judy is saying.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

So is it the responsibility of the LFS to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator?

 

[flameangel1]

Steve,
yes, you are correct.
If they do not see them, they will not buy them and if we explain WHY we do not stock them, the hobbyist will NOT go down the street and buy them from the dealer who does carry them.
Which, if that dealer can not sell something, he will no longer stock it !!

Glenn,
I honestly think we have a responsibility to teach each and every hobbyist, as much as possible about what fish are hardy and sustainable.
And although this may cause a flame, I really wish all the fish we stock, were tank raised !! I do know this is not viable yet and may never be.
It botheres me no end, that there currently is no guarantee as to HOW a wild fish is caught or where.
Therefore, I feel safer with tank raised as much as possible.

Yes, we are limited in variety, but if we are not careful, there will be even less variety in the future.

 

[Anonymous]

I honestly think we have a responsibility to teach each and every hobbyist, as much as possible about what fish are hardy and sustainable.

I agree completely. Otherwise I wouldn't be in business. However their is a wide range of ability in this hobby. It doesn't make sense for a retailer not to stock something because someone may not be able to care for it. I try to give all of my fish as good a chance as possible when they leave, knowing that if the customer is successful they will be back. But there are no gurantees. (Although I agree with you on the PBT and I don't stock them.)

 

[flameangel1]

Glenn,,

However their is a wide range of ability in this hobby.

Best answer for this, is to special order the less hardy fish for the advanced aquarist. Newbies will want that fish if they see it, but they would not be able to take care of it properly.
And would be less than happy if you told them they were not experienced enough for it.
(new hobbyists do not think in the same time frame for experience ,that the advanced aquarists do)
Right??

 

[Anonymous]

That's generally what I do, but you can't stock a store with only newbie friendly stock.

 

[Kalkbreath]

The real world ...........If all collection for the hobby stops..............the blastfishing for food fish increases..............[reefs' lose}........Lfs does not have it .......................................they will buy it on line........{storefronts lose}..........80% of any fish newbies buy will die..................................{New tank, thick heads}.................why not let those "doomed" fish come from the most abundant supply......{Moorish Idols}..................................
_________________
ak47 marijuana
_________________
Mercedes Benz O305

 

[flameangel1]

Kalk,,
what is with this fetish you seem to have for moorish idols ???
As a shop owner, and member of this BB, don't you feel a responsibility to keep those 80% of fish from dying in the newbies tank??
Cripes, I would be horrified if my customers lost even 20% .

Moorish Idols are rarely hardy even in an advanced aquarists tank.
You know that as do most on this board.
We are not in this hobby or business to kill fish, are we??
(I sure am not anyway)
I see no comparison between the "food fish over there" and killing them over here. Sure hope others don't compare the two either.

Thats like saying people will die sooner or later, so it is ok to run over them with a truck !!!!!

 

[SPC]

Posted by Glenn:

So is it the responsibility of the LFS to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator?

-No, I think it is their responsibility to not carry animals that are known to have a very poor survival rate in aquariums. From a business stand point I would think this would be an important aspect also.

Posted by Kalk:

The real world ...........If all collection for the hobby stops..............the blastfishing for food fish increases..............[reefs' lose}........Lfs does not have it .......................................they will buy it on line........{storefronts lose}..........80% of any fish newbies buy will die..................................{New tank, thick heads}.................why not let those "doomed" fish come from the most abundant supply......{Moorish Idols}..................................

-I am sure glad you were able to decipher this mess and respond to it Judy, I am still lost :lol: . This must have been written in some LFS secret code :wink: .
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yeh, that was a bit messy. It's simple , if this hobby takes ten times as many Coral eating Butterflies.... the abundance of these fish will not change in the wild.{there will still be millions} if this hobby takes ten times as many yellow tangs, then there will be too many missing from the Hawiian reefs'. Lets say I am stuck out on an island ....I have twenty bottles of water , of which I need one a day to survive.I also have five thousand electric razers.........{the boat I was on was carring a shipment for over seas} If I have to give up something each day I would rather it be an electric razer because I have thousands and I dont have very much use even one{like the reef and coral eating butterflies} ?
_________________
Honda Civic Type R
_________________
Honda NR500

 

[Kalkbreath]

Also, if the islanders cannot collect fish for this hobby , then they will collect them for the food industry and export dead fish instead..........because there is no need to collect fish ALIVE for the food industry, it is much easier to just blast fish and scoop up the bloated fish on the top of the water after the bomb stuns the fish and rips apart the coral heads......now, the funny thing about killing coral is that when the coral dies, the green algae that covers the dead coral skeleton is now a great food source for the fish..........so then, dead coral means more fish to the islanders and thus they continue to blast and blast.............An interesting read is the story about the 1998 bleaching event in the Maldives Islands. These reefs were 90% covered in green blankets after the bleaching. At first everyone thought that the fish would be disapear.But the opposite is what happened. Fish populations never before witnessed and larger populations then was ever thought to be possible. I wish I could find the Dive magazine that I first read about this ? Maybe five months ago? Anyway.my point is that a dead reef can be more productive then a live coral covered reef, so to force the islanders to make a living by blasting for food fish to export.......... will not help the reefs or the coral a bitl
_________________
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Forum
_________________
Mercedes Benz W201

 

[Anonymous]

Yeh, that was a bit messy. It's simple , if this hobby takes ten times as many Coral eating Butterflies.... the abundance of these fish will not change in the wild.{there will still be millions} if this hobby takes ten times as many yellow tangs, then there will be too many missing from the Hawiian reefs'. Lets say I am stuck out on an island ....I have twenty bottles of water , of which I need one a day to survive.I also have five thousand electric razers.........{the boat I was on was carring a shipment for over seas} If I have to give up something each day I would rather it be an electric razer because I have thousands and I dont have very much use even one{like the reef and coral eating butterflies} ?

maybe the butterflies represent a necessary control for corals?

again, you show complete, and utterly irresponsible lack of consideration for how your actions may impact upon the environment-only being concerned with your personal pocketbook...

 

[Anonymous]

Also, if the islanders cannot collect fish for this hobby , then they will collect them for the food industry and export dead fish instead..........because there is no need to collect fish ALIVE for the food industry, it is much easier to just blast fish and scoop up the bloated fish on the top of the water after the bomb stuns the fish and rips apart the coral heads......now, the funny thing about killing coral is that when the coral dies, the green algae that covers the dead coral skeleton is now a great food source for the fish..........so then, dead coral means more fish to the islanders and thus they continue to blast and blast.............An interesting read is the story about the 1998 bleaching event in the Maldives Islands. These reefs were 90% covered in green blankets after the bleaching. At first everyone thought that the fish would be disapear.But the opposite is what happened. Fish populations never before witnessed and larger populations then was ever thought to be possible. I wish I could find the Dive magazine that I first read about this ? Maybe five months ago? Anyway.my point is that a dead reef can be more productive then a live coral covered reef, so to force the islanders to make a living by blasting for food fish to export.......... will not help the reefs or the coral a bitl

which of these reef fish are highly consumed as food by the nations they would be exporting them to? i've never seen yellow tang,or hippo's, in my supermarket....

 

[Kalkbreath]

maybe the butterflies represent a necessary control for corals?

Maybe Humans represent a necessary control for corals?....................maybe malaria,the bubonic plague and the measles represent a necessary control for humans?
_________________
Mercedes Benz GL Class
_________________
recession history us