If we ban half of all animals imported, due to lower survival rates, the remaining 50% will have twice the pressure on them? One Butterfly sold = one less clown Trigger removed.......One thousand butterflies sold = 1000 {something else} not removed from the reef. Animals removed from the ocean not in short supply, help to lessen the numbers removed of other animals which might thrive well in hobbists tanks, but are fewer in number on the reef? ei; if Mullet {which are vast in supply} have a poor survival rate in captivity......so what!
Limit imports, double pressure
- Thread starter Cappuccino Bay Aquarium
- Start date
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
For example, the wolf population in Minnesota. It had reached a point where it could no longer self-sustain with the food supply available. Hence, many wolves did starve to death. Then, with less predators around, the food supply (ex.-deer) grew in numbers. The wolves started coming back, but not fast enough to overtake the exploding deer population, so many deer starved to death over the winter. Then a "balance" had been acheived, as this cycle repeats itself over the course of a couple of years.
We as humans have no right to keep species that, at this point, cannot be kept alive with current food sources. Now if you want to constantly supply them with their req'd food source, and can succesfully do it, go ahead.
CBA, that is exactly the attitude that is getting this hobby so much bad press and in to potential banning troubles. Look at the ethics- your basically starving a butterfly to death! Have you ever seen someone starving to death that has gone past the stage of no return- in other words, no matter how we try to medically treat this person, they're still going to die as a result of all the organ damage that is done while starving to death? If not, its not a pretty picture. I'd suggest you remember why you got into this hobby from the beginning. If starving humans to death isn't acceptable, then it sure as heck isn't for animals, either (if caused by us). When an animal dies of starvation as a result of natural causes, that is a whole other issue.
For example, the wolf population in Minnesota. It had reached a point where it could no longer self-sustain with the food supply available. Hence, many wolves did starve to death. Then, with less predators around, the food supply (ex.-deer) grew in numbers. The wolves started coming back, but not fast enough to overtake the exploding deer population, so many deer starved to death over the winter. Then a "balance" had been acheived, as this cycle repeats itself over the course of a couple of years.
We as humans have no right to keep species that, at this point, cannot be kept alive with current food sources. Now if you want to constantly supply them with their req'd food source, and can succesfully do it, go ahead.
Which brings up the point....
Should the hobby be governed by
#1 Natural Resource issues?
or
#2 "Ethical" (humane) treatment of animals issues?
If #1, then as long as their are plenty of animals on the reef for collection (i.e. sustainable collection), it doesn't matter the survival rate in captivity. It is a natural resource that is being harvested. As long as the harvest does no damage, the consequences of the harvest don't matter. This puts aquarium fish in the same category as food fish, both are harvested with little thought as to their ultimate fate.
If #2, then a whole new can of worms is opened as some may consider it cruelty to animals to take a fish out of the huge ocean and confine it to a shortened life in a glass box. Even keeping the hardiest of fish may be considered "cruel to some. Certainly importing animals that are certain to die relatively quickly (obligate and impossible feeders) would be considered cruel by a majority of people, however the line is a little more difficult to draw.
Glenn
Should the hobby be governed by
#1 Natural Resource issues?
or
#2 "Ethical" (humane) treatment of animals issues?
If #1, then as long as their are plenty of animals on the reef for collection (i.e. sustainable collection), it doesn't matter the survival rate in captivity. It is a natural resource that is being harvested. As long as the harvest does no damage, the consequences of the harvest don't matter. This puts aquarium fish in the same category as food fish, both are harvested with little thought as to their ultimate fate.
If #2, then a whole new can of worms is opened as some may consider it cruelty to animals to take a fish out of the huge ocean and confine it to a shortened life in a glass box. Even keeping the hardiest of fish may be considered "cruel to some. Certainly importing animals that are certain to die relatively quickly (obligate and impossible feeders) would be considered cruel by a majority of people, however the line is a little more difficult to draw.
Glenn
Good point, glenn (#2) However, I think that this could aply to all animals that are kept as pets then. Yes, even your dog/cat/bird at one time (or in the case of domesticated dogs, one era) all lived in open spaces. Now, this does not justify taking an emporer angel, placing him in a 30gallon, and expecting him to like it. I think that an argument can be made, by the general roming characteristics of a certain species, what size glass box would be appropriate for them, and hold the hobbyist accountable for having the appropriate accomadations. Might I add, this would obviously increase the list of unsuitable to keep species.
I live in British Columbia.
Clear cutting timber destroyed the market for trees in Europe. They won't buy B.C. trees.
We are talking trees here not living critters.
When someone takes a close look at our hobby (that we are harvesting LIVE critters that have very little chance of survival), our hobby will really be in trouble.
If we undertake to clean up our act, IMO there is less likelihood for closure which would mean that we would be left with trading brown frags amongst us.
Think about it and it is pretty hard to defend importing a species with next to zero chance of success.
Clear cutting timber destroyed the market for trees in Europe. They won't buy B.C. trees.
We are talking trees here not living critters.
When someone takes a close look at our hobby (that we are harvesting LIVE critters that have very little chance of survival), our hobby will really be in trouble.
If we undertake to clean up our act, IMO there is less likelihood for closure which would mean that we would be left with trading brown frags amongst us.
Think about it and it is pretty hard to defend importing a species with next to zero chance of success.
Glen,
Great point!!! I think that pretty much boils down the dilema in the hobby. I personally view our tanks as #1 with a dash of #2.
I think your view of it depends on how you view the world. If you think the world is there to be used in a responsible manner I would think you tend to gravitate to #1. If you view the world more as vegan's do (or the ones i've met) and it's cruel to subject any animal to subjecation (is that how you spell it) then you probably gravitate to #2.
And this leads me to another point. This debate is not only within the fish realm but in every other industry that uses nature for it's own gain. I doubt an equilibrium will ever be reached. But this reminds me of another great debate
Tastes great? or Less Filling
Bill
Great point!!! I think that pretty much boils down the dilema in the hobby. I personally view our tanks as #1 with a dash of #2.
I think your view of it depends on how you view the world. If you think the world is there to be used in a responsible manner I would think you tend to gravitate to #1. If you view the world more as vegan's do (or the ones i've met) and it's cruel to subject any animal to subjecation (is that how you spell it) then you probably gravitate to #2.
And this leads me to another point. This debate is not only within the fish realm but in every other industry that uses nature for it's own gain. I doubt an equilibrium will ever be reached. But this reminds me of another great debate
Tastes great? or Less Filling
Bill
There are actually groups out there that are hoping to one day make it illegal to own any animal as a pet.
I tend to lean more towards #1 myself. However, the point is obvious that currently there are many species that are not being collected in a sustainable manner. Between that and the disapearance of the world's reefs it makes #2 that much more important. It makes us ask the question, "Is this hobby worth it?" Is taking an animal out of his home to live a shortened life in a glass box really worth the end result on the environment?
Another alternative is to view man as predator. One could always rationalize that this baby fish had a very slim chance of making it to adult hood in the wild any way, I'll try to make it as happy as i can until he croaks at my house in my glass box. Either way the fish dies. Such sticky issues. The bottom line however is that the reponsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the consumer. The day people stop wanting bright colorful fish floating around in their living rooms the day collection stops. It's been stated beforeand I think it's a good point. This boils down to a supply/demand issue. When consumers start demanding more (healthier specimens) and start refusing to buy impossible to keep species the market will respond.
Glenn
I tend to lean more towards #1 myself. However, the point is obvious that currently there are many species that are not being collected in a sustainable manner. Between that and the disapearance of the world's reefs it makes #2 that much more important. It makes us ask the question, "Is this hobby worth it?" Is taking an animal out of his home to live a shortened life in a glass box really worth the end result on the environment?
Another alternative is to view man as predator. One could always rationalize that this baby fish had a very slim chance of making it to adult hood in the wild any way, I'll try to make it as happy as i can until he croaks at my house in my glass box. Either way the fish dies. Such sticky issues. The bottom line however is that the reponsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the consumer. The day people stop wanting bright colorful fish floating around in their living rooms the day collection stops. It's been stated beforeand I think it's a good point. This boils down to a supply/demand issue. When consumers start demanding more (healthier specimens) and start refusing to buy impossible to keep species the market will respond.
Glenn
Why is it ok to kill billions of Tuna or Sardines, yet not to kill butterfly fish? Like it or not 99.8 percent of all Tropical fish die within one year of being cought? And 99.9998 percent of Tuna and Sardines die within one year as well.{one hour} Not that much of a difference between the two, yet many of the same fish eating hobbists that complain about certian fish types of importation feel that there is ? Second, To limit the number of types of fish removed from the reef for the hobby ,would place a strain on the remaining allowable species, to the point of over harvesting of ALL SPECIES! .I feel captive breeding is great and a better fish. And that fish on the reef which are low in numbers {like Breeding Adults} need to have restrictions on there removal for the trade. What I am saying is that if a Species is not low in numbers on the reef, yet does poorly in captivity.SO WHAT ALL fish HAve a POOR SURVIVAL RATE! Then its solely a moral issue with reguards to harvesting less captive hardy fish for the trade. {And this is not a Moral Hobby at best}
Cappuccino
Yes it is a moral issue.
Do we continue to allow you to import species which you know have an impossible survival rate?
IMO, if those in the industry do not start policing themselves you may not have a business and we many not have a hobby.
You need to let us know where you stand. Do you support the adoption of a list of prohibited species or do you not?
With the greatest respect, your sardine analogy is a red herring.
Yes it is a moral issue.
Do we continue to allow you to import species which you know have an impossible survival rate?
IMO, if those in the industry do not start policing themselves you may not have a business and we many not have a hobby.
You need to let us know where you stand. Do you support the adoption of a list of prohibited species or do you not?
With the greatest respect, your sardine analogy is a red herring.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
There is a benefit derived from the death of the tuna. Food. There is no benefit derived from the death of the butterfly fish. As long as the benefits of the tuna's death outweigh the negative impact on the environment, tunas will continue to be killed. Currently, the death of the butterfly fish does not outweigh it's impact on the environment, therefore they should not be killed.
Pretty simple if you ask me.
Glenn
There is a benefit derived from the death of the tuna. Food. There is no benefit derived from the death of the butterfly fish. As long as the benefits of the tuna's death outweigh the negative impact on the environment, tunas will continue to be killed. Currently, the death of the butterfly fish does not outweigh it's impact on the environment, therefore they should not be killed.
Pretty simple if you ask me.
Glenn
Tell that to the Sardines? Why do more hardy fish deserve to become our entertainment but not less hardy fish. As Americans, most of the fish we eat, are for our intertainment[ENJOYMENT}.....We as humans only need to eat about one tenth the amount of food we do? Take other countries eating habits {volumes}! We Americans eat the amount we do solely for fun.thats why we are the fattest people in the world...... So we kill fish to eat {for fun}, we kill fish to make fish food for our {HARDY}pet fish{for fun} we kill millions of "FEEDER" fish {for fun} and some of us even go fishing {for fun} ? Banning the killing of certain fish soley based on poor survival rates as pets, is a "feel good " attempt to hide the fact that ALL fish have a POOR survival rate ? Ask Mary for some numbers on the number of fish and corals imported over the last ten years .and divide that numbe by the number of estimated Hobbists or the number of tanks sold in the US over that same period ? Each tank would have to have hundreds of fish in each even if 10 % were still alive? Lets work on REAL issues that Help the Reefs and the Hobby
I don't understand your second post at all. You still haven't explained the benefit derived from a dead butterflyfish. (I'll go along for arguments sake) Even if we do eat fish for {fun} that is still a derived benefit. I don't know of anyone who enjoys watching a fish die simply for the experience. If you're gonna eat it, maybe. (I've never eaten butterfly fish so I can't be too sure on that one.)
Most fish food is made from the leftovers from the processing plants so the same fish we eat we feed to our fish (reduces impact on reef by getting the most bang for our buck).
Most feeder fish are aquacultured for the express purpose of feeding to other fish or for ponds. (very little impact there)
Most fish caught are highly regulated as to how many you can catch, with what, and what size they must be in order to be harvested. (impact highly regulated)
Sorry but I don't get your point at all.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Such as??
Glenn
Most fish food is made from the leftovers from the processing plants so the same fish we eat we feed to our fish (reduces impact on reef by getting the most bang for our buck).
Most feeder fish are aquacultured for the express purpose of feeding to other fish or for ponds. (very little impact there)
Most fish caught are highly regulated as to how many you can catch, with what, and what size they must be in order to be harvested. (impact highly regulated)
Sorry but I don't get your point at all.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Such as??
Glenn
My point may be that, out of 1000 fish sold retail......900 will die within the first year? Now lets say we limit those 1000 fish to only "hardy types" like groupers and damsels? What fish have a better survival rate then those? Well if we were to follow the life of those fish after they are sold to the hobbists, we would find that one : most will still die within weeks in over fed "death"tanks, the lucky thirty percent that might make it past eight weeks are soon too big {Groupers} or "not exiting enough" {Damsels} And what we have left are unwanted fish with owners that are looking for new interesting fishes {butterflies} to replace the Boring {"Hardy"}ones? If we cut in half the types of fish taken from the reef this will mean having to double the numbers taken of hardy species.twice as many Groupers ,Damsels, Triggers etc.....Its the difficult, odd fish, that on one hand keep us from depleting the supplies of the limited variety of hardy types and on the other hand is notlearning how to keep seemingly impossible fish and corals is WHAT this Reef Hobby is ALL about! Is it not? Since not long ago almost ALL marine corals and most fish were deemed imposible to keep, lets say we use the past as our starting point to decide what to ban and what not ? Silly? As silly as it would have been then twenty years ago to ban and not waiting until now to conclude what to ban? How bout we Again wait for future strides in Marine husbandry to determine what is possible and what is not?
Im not saying Business as usual, Far from it . Its this idea that showing gov. the facts is only going to seal the fate of total ban. A total ban on imports will also seal the fate on the reefs, Once the main reason to keep the reefs healthy is gone {American Money} the reefs will be fished to death for food and Mined for Calcium{ Cement& Lime}< The main use for Southdown sand is for concrete made by CEMEX> "Be carefull what you wish for" Lets work on learning why so many fish die during and after import and fix our little Hobby quirks because this hobby is the only groupwhich truly can help , with its money and learning potential......
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
I don't think any one is going to the government. As a matter of fact most people are against a governmnent enforced ban. This is an attempt to police the industry from the inside by an through an industry organization in order to avoid a governmenatl ban.
Glenn
I don't think any one is going to the government. As a matter of fact most people are against a governmnent enforced ban. This is an attempt to police the industry from the inside by an through an industry organization in order to avoid a governmenatl ban.
Glenn
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
