MO Research Needs

[naesco]

Rikko with the greatest respect I think your thinking is dated. In the past it was acceptable for anyone to bring home anything and try to keep it alive even though experts could not.
Maybe (and I hope that all of us) will be able to keep some of the most beautiful species which cannot be kept today but in the meantime I think the scientific experiments on the needs of these species should be done by scientists, universities and with special permit hobbyists.
Eric deals primarily with coral.

Scott Michael is the noted fish guy. I do not disagree with any of his comments on what might be classified under a USL.

Every single LFS or industry type and experienced reefer could come up with an identical list in one hour based on their knowledge and experience.

I think the issue is whether there should be a list or not and we are well past that discussion. The government will mandate one.



( Is this really so hard?)

 

[MaryHM]

Legislation is like a band aid. It's delightfully easy to apply, and a nightmare to remove.

That, my friend, was brilliant.

 

[Rikko]

Rikko with the greatest respect I think your thinking is dated. In the past it was acceptable for anyone to bring home anything and try to keep it alive even though experts could not.

My stance comes more from the dangers of legislation rather than the ethical responsibilities we have as aquarists. People still kill goldfish in bowls and triggers in uncycled tanks and that trend will continue. We can do whatever we want, millions more fish will die because people are unwilling to research their hobby. It's unfortunate (I'm not one to indiscriminately throw around the word 'tragedy') but it's a fact nobody here will disagree with.
Now you have species that we know a lot more about than we did years ago, and we feel comfortable saying we aren't able to replicate their needs for survival as we know them. What's being done now is essentially guess and test. We kill it and decide 'that dinna work' or it survives at some capacity and we draw new conclusions about its care. Ethically it sounds deplorable, but it's doing less damage than dynamite fishing and dumping sewage into the oceans, and ultimately it will have benefits for both species: we may gain medical knowledge, and by knowing what the species truly needs, we can gauge what exactly is going on in an aquarium or wild reef that is detrimental to that species.

Maybe (and I hope that all of us) will be able to keep some of the most beautiful species which cannot be kept today but in the meantime I think the scientific experiments on the needs of these species should be done by scientists, universities and with special permit hobbyists.

And I don't disagree with that in principle at all. It's admirable and reflects the world as it should be. But there's also the ridiculous amount of red tape that gets thrown up between now and then. Take this fictitious example:
Moorish idols. They aren't cutting it. Legislative ban in effect. You can't have one unless you demonstrate you can help make a positive change in their husbandry. Now the Waikiki aquarium plays around and sees that they fare so poorly in captivity because of a genetic flaw: they have some silly imbalance in their bloodstream. In the wilds they cope with this by occasionally bumping against a diadema urchin - the 'poison' in the urchin actually helps balance their body chemistry. A true symbiosis we never knew existed.
Great, so now we know the trick to keeping them alive. Let's call up the government and get the MI off the list - we've got our **** together and they're now a no brainer. Will it get off the list? I'd be willing to put money down saying it will never, ever get changed because we as aquarists are not a powerful lobby group and correcting a flaw in the law isn't "worth their time". There's our friggin' band aid at work.

I think the issue is whether there should be a list or not and we are well past that discussion. The government will mandate one.

The government will mandate something, and I tremble in fear to see what their best thinkers come up with. Considering all the bumps, bizarre playground zones, concrete contraptions and other nonsense I face on my drive to work, I'm sure it'll be just as senseless and ineffective.

 

[kylen]

Just a thought Wayne, but what would an acceptable period of time for a fish to be in an aquarists tank before you would consider it a success? Since you are concerned with the needless death of a single fish, how many are killed by uncaring or unknowing hobbyists, that are incapable of providing a suitable environment for these animals? The reason whyI bring this up is that there must be far greater numbers of suitable fish that are needlesly killed than unsuitable fish. Based on poor husbandry by hobbyists, these fish don't have a chance to survive either.

 

[nanocat]

What better example of suitable fish being needlessly killed, than the often encouraged practice of "cycling with damsels". Everyone worries about moorish idols, few speak up for the poor $2 fish.

 

[Rikko]

I've yet to see a fish die when used to responsibly cycle a tank. A damsel-sized fish to 30 gallons of water or more (and if you don't know what you're doing you probably shouldn't be running a tank under 30 gallons) with low feedings won't produce horrendously high ammonia or nitrite levels.
The real problem comes when complete newbies think they need to throw food in 4x a day and the huge protein influx from the flakes poisons the tank.

My question to the people who cycle with damsels, however, is do you really want a damsel in your final setup?

 

[Anonymous]

What better example of suitable fish being needlessly killed, than the often encouraged practice of "cycling with damsels". Everyone worries about moorish idols, few speak up for the poor $2 fish.

well said